Talk:Oxycation
Add topicLatest comment: 1 year ago by Johnjbarton in topic Reliable sources discussion
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Johnjbarton (talk · contribs) on 9 May 2025. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2025. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry
[edit]See:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Oxycation
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Proposed for deletion (PROD): Oxycation
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Reliable sources discussion
[edit]User:Johnjbarton: it appears that you recently removed citations from the Examples section of the article, with the edit summary Please add reliable sources per WP:Verify
. Could you expand on your justification for this? (My reading of the specific facts may be taken from primary sources
clause of WP:RSPRIMARY is that primary academic sources like doi:10.1021/JACS.5B08765 should be acceptable for the Examples section of the article.) Preimage (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to this revert? I apologize.
- I restored two of the examples but not the Xenon one. Do you have any sources that confirm "oxocation==oxycation"? Since we don't have source for a definition of oxycation how can we know an "oxocation" is on topic?
- If we had any, just one decent source the talked about "oxycation" my entire attitude would change. I still think this article is creating information by association. And I don't understand why. The topic seems so insignificant. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed; I've been searching for reliable secondary sources and it really seems to be quite fruitless. I did have a question for you (back at the AfD) on what WP's policy is regarding navigational list articles that rely solely on primary sources — if that's not permitted, I think that would be a strong argument in favor of deletion. Preimage (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- I gave my opinion over there, but here I would add that for me its more the direct discussion of the topic that merits consideration than primary vs secondary. The sources I have seen are using "oxycation" as self-evident adjective for a component of a chemical compound. That these sources are primary or secondary isn't critical because so far they've not said anything notable out the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed; I've been searching for reliable secondary sources and it really seems to be quite fruitless. I did have a question for you (back at the AfD) on what WP's policy is regarding navigational list articles that rely solely on primary sources — if that's not permitted, I think that would be a strong argument in favor of deletion. Preimage (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)