Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanimide

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cyanamide. ^Complex/_Rational 22:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanimide

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded by me after Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Cyanimide due to an evident lack of a consistent usage for this term in the literature, but it was dePRODded by Kvng (talk · contribs) citing WP:NOTCLEANUP. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The simplest compound of that type, according to the article, would be the dimethyl derivative but Chemspider calls this dimethylcyanamide, which I agree with. Chemspider has no hit for "cyanimide", although that's not definitive. Pubchem gives just one hit for "cyanimide", which is a synonym for N-cyanoformamide. The only reference previously in the article only contains the term "cyanoimide". I conclude that there is no such set of compounds as cyanimides. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with what Mike Turnbull says. However, I might be persuaded to change my mind if anyone can come up with some sources to indicate that this term is used in practice. Web of Science yields about 17 references, most of them old or very old, but there is one recent one from a respected journal: J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 142 (39) 16825–16841 (2020) Athel cb (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doi:10.1021/jacs.0c07726 (open access) looks like a wonderful example of citeogenesis to me. They repeatedly use cyanimide in their text but the citation #27, for example, uses cyanamide in its title. By 2020, the Wikipedia article created in 2005 would be the top search engine hit for cyanimide! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Google ngram confirms that cyanamide is overwhelmingly more common than cyanimide. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then rather than deleting, wouldn't it better to redirect this title to cyanamide? ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, provided {{R from misspelling}} is used and the hatnote at cyanamide is removed. The Wiktionary term (see below) is IMO also a misspelling. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyanamide. It seems cyanamide is the simplest form of cyanimide, where both R groups are a single hydrogen atom, so the two terms aren't identical, even if they are used interchangeably by some sources. Either way, what we have here right now is nothing more than a DICDEF, which already exists on Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyanamide as most uses in literature appear to be a mistake for this. The possible meaning as >C=NC≡N is only in one reference. I think we need to kill off the Wiktionary entry as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.