Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluoric (iii) acid

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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 01:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoric (iii) acid

[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)

"Hypothetical oxyacid of fluorine" that cannot chemically exist [1] and the only references to "fluoric acid" I could find online (including the Google Books link in the article) are as substitutions for hydrofluoric acid. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't even appear to be hypothetical, there are literally zero sources in Gscholar or Books that mention it. Chemical HOAX? Lack of sourcing regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't sure on whether it would qualify as a hoax under Wikipedia's guidelines otherwise I would have CSD tagged it under G3. The article creator also tried to publish several similar articles through AfC which were all denied. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also creator looks like an SPA. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually,i translate this article from Esperanto to english .I dont know that.I very sorry if i have any mistake. Junurita (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Translation to learn how to avoid breaking copyright/license policy, and the importance of checking sources yourself. But more importantly, the editor who wrote that (and many other) eowiki chemical articles is well-known for making up complete chemical nonsense or writing their own hypotheses rather than using cited reliable sources. The WP:BURDEN is on you. DMacks (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V except simple mechanical molecular-formula claim. And all other claims are definitely bogus: there's no possible way to state as fact the chemical, physical, or other properties of a chemical that is stated to not even exist. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hypothetical substance with the formula HFO₃. The only source given is a dictionary published in 1817. My search for better sources found nothing. The term "fluoric acid" is used by homeopaths as a synonym for hydrofluoric acid, HF. Wikipedia has articles on fictional and hypothetical subjects, but only if they've been written about. Here we have no evidence that the term has ever been used. Maproom (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is fantasy chemistry, with no place in a serious source of genuine information. Athel cb (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single reference to a book published in 1817 is an immediate fail after 200 years of chemistry which hasn't managed to characterise it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above. A no brainer. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That book is talking abut what we would call hydrofluoric acid. There appear to be no reliable writings on HFO₃ ina google scholar search, so it is not even hypothetically studied. I almost labelled this as a hoax when in draft stage. But I do not believe it was intentionally misleading, just wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article on the hypothetical oxyacid of fluorine fails WP:V due to a lack of verifiable sources. There are no references in Google Scholar or Books that mention this substance. The only source provided is a dictionary from 1817, which is outdated and insufficient. Modern chemistry does not recognize this hypothetical substance, and the term "fluoric acid" is often misused as a synonym for hydrofluoric acid. Without reliable and contemporary sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines.Master rollo (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:V. If we can’t find it, or verify it, it’s not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2024 (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.