Gold phosphide: Keres🌕 Luna edits!  20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Keres🌕 Luna edits!  20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You might be a bit hasty.  A lack of evidence for existence is not evidence that something does not exist.  If you want to claim that AuP [1] it isn't a real thing, you really need to cite contemporary work.   The citations in the extant article are a wee bit long in the tooth.   While the historic claim may have some interesting tidbits someone might dig up, it really is more the fact that there really is such as thing as gold phosphide (even if not AuP, but rather Au 2 P 3 [2] [3] [4] ).  So the page has some definite need since they are spelled the same, even if they are different things.  Per one site "Gold Phosphide is a  used in high power, high frequency applications and in laser diodes." [5] I don't have access to the chemistry literature that this page would require.   There isn't anything in PubMed, which includes a lot of primary chemistry literature as well.   So it is pretty obscure, but that doesn't mean we cannot make room for it in our hearts, esp. if it plays some important role, e.g. in high power/high frequency laser diodes.  I would suggest making it a chemistry stub/draft and seeing anyone in the chemistry club wants to adopt it.  The PubChem CID 19094837 is not at all convincing.   Just as a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, having an unambiguous identifier for something doesn't mean its real either.   The two SIDs 56368501 , 162106709 are probably for something real (even if they are the worst entries ever in the history of PubChem).  2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE ( talk ) 06:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (This is User:DrKC MD editing logged out.  Binksternet ( talk ) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) } [ reply ] American Elements is NOT a reliable source WP:VENDOR , due to their commercial interest.  All the information we can find about it is in archaic literature, when concrete characterization such as X-ray diffraction or even Raman spectroscopy had been developed.  I change my stance to rename to gold phosphides to broaden the scope to other actually characterized gold phosphides like Au 2 P 3 .  [6] Keres🌕 Luna edits!  16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837 ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675 ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501 ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709 ^ https://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide ^ R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012).  "Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity".  Catalysis Letters .  142 (12): 1413–1436.  doi : 10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7 .  Keep Hypothetical compounds can be notable ( Xenon octafluoride , Nitrogen pentafluoride , ...), and while the sourcing here is not of the first water, it seems easily sufficient to demonstrate minimum required coverage.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG see [27] [28] [29] -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 15:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this deletion discussion about something called Gold phosphide or about something with the formula AuP?  Most of the hits for the former are for Au 2 P 3 , and people commenting here have interpreted things in different ways.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 15:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This deletion discussion is supposed be something with the formula AuP.  Keres🌕 Luna edits!  16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is exactly the problem, the sources cited all seem to be talking about different things.   References 4 and 5 flatly contradict each other (one says gray solid, one says black with metallic appearance).   Hypothetical compounds can be notable but we would have to make the article about a specific compound and be sure our sources reflect that.   Since I'm not sure we can do that, I would support a rename to gold phosphides and rewriting of the article; failing that, delete.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) Rename to gold phosphides per previous "keep" and "rename" arguments.  Choucas Bleu ( T · C ) 16:08, 23 April 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus