Dihydroxyamine: The only "references" are database entries that do not show the substance has any publications or is notable.  I am nominating this after User:DMacks 's prod was removed by the page creator.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 03:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only dihydroxyamines that I can find in chemistry textbooks are Ar N(OH) 2 compounds, which aren't this.  Uncle G ( talk ) 16:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  The species is super obscure (because of the absence of good secondary/tertiary sources), non-notable, and even deceptive.   Looking forward to comments by other chemists. -- Smokefoot ( talk ) 18:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable, per my comments on article-talkpage and my PROD of it.  Creator objected to PROD, as is their right, but their only activity on WP seems to be rigorously applying uncited terminology rules in contexts where they don't apply or are not even correct.  DMacks ( talk ) 18:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nonexistent compound and not particularly notable as a hypothetical compound; all information provided is trivially derived from its chemical formula.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per nom, can also confirm original creator seems to just add "other names" to various compounds, a lot of which are not names in use.  EvilxFish ( talk ) 08:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Likely delete, possible merge.  Can someone run a structure/CAS No.  search against the CAS database [No. 99711-79-2], to be sure that this has not, as a hypothetical substance, been the subject of theoretical/computational study?  The late Jeremy Burdett devoted a fair bit of effort (and book and journal pages) to hypothetical structures, to very effective ends that advanced the materials field (and AO/MO theory generally, e.g., ISBN 978-0471078609 ).  Perhaps also, the material that was removed from this article, early, as plagiarized—see doi : 10.1063/1.2723120 and article history—should be examined for its relevance.  (It's removal may have been proper, but the material may still have been relevant, only improperly used.)  While the article should indeed probably go, if such a structure has been studied, the only place a layperson will find it is in Wikipedia.  So if verifiable, perhaps the lines should appear in (be merged into) the article of the most closely related real compound.   Regards.  98.206.31.187 ( talk ) 19:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well you can look up http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2723120 to see what it was about and it was hydrated nitrite ion clusters.  Another reference removed was about HNO 2 -• which was given a very similar name "Dihydroxylamine" but different enough to not be on this topic.  One of the issues with this page is that there is no content worth merging anywhere else.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 05:29, 2 February 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: delete