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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catal's reagent[edit]

Catal's reagent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a substance that has no publications on it yet. There is so far a preprint, not yet published that is referenced in the article. No independent publication references this or mentions it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's been through peer review and is described as "in press", implying that it will be published. But that still doesn't make it notable. That happens when independent researchers cite the paper and, ideally, tell us whether it does what is claimed. SpinningSpark 00:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Calling it Catal's reagent makes it sound notable but in truth it's anything but. There's no evidence that it's being used by anyone other than the group which developed it. Too soon. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON, and the use of the self-aggrandizing name leaves a bad taste. SpinningSpark 00:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTE and looks like WP:CONFLICT. Does not mention Fenton's reagent which has been around since the late 1890s and is a clearly chemically related process. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the corresponding article in de.wikipedia was moved to de:1-(Dodecylthio)anthrachinon. --Leyo 09:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Turkish version still named with less modesty.... (see links on the English page) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For the reasons above. To be fair, many new editors are unable to separate themselves from their thesis work, their own projects, their coworkers, .... Just a matter of growing up. Also, a "minor detail" there is no ferrous sulfate in solution so how could one detect it? There is a ferrous aquo complex and there is sulfate, but they arent bonded. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(This Wikipedia account was created to participate in this discussion). In the paper, it was mentioned that all metal salts were tried, no metal salt reaction other than iron II sulfate was reacted with only iron II sulfate salt. As explained in the study; When the kit solution is treated with iron II sulfate, it acts as a sensor for this salt (both spectrophotometrically explained and it has been reported that physical color change is observed), and the iron dissolved from the iron II sulfate in solution forms a complex with the molecule in the structure of the kit. The kit thus prepared is a sensor for iron II sulfate and can be used in the application areas of iron II sulfate.

Fenton reaction is the most basic reaction showing the radical formation in hydrogen peroxide environment and is a reference study explaining the decomposition steps of hydrogen peroxide. The Fenton reaction is referenced to explain these decomposition steps when the kit in our study was treated with hydrogen peroxide. The fenton reaction, which is a basic reaction for the decomposition steps of hydrogen peroxide, not only for the entire kit mechanism is referenced, and also should be written in the Wikipedia entry.

National / International PCT patent protection number was obtained for the study. In addition, the kit; cement, textile, wastewater-environmental analysis, food, paint industry etc. New posts can be made for each separate application area. As shown in the paper, there are supplementary data which will be released, soon. So, more details will improve the entry.

As a result, the entry is open to improve, and should remain. The title of the entry can be renamed and detailed as the German version of the Entry. Moreover, more references can be used in Wikipedia same as used in the published paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodecylthioanthracene (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodecylthioanthracene: the way it works in these discussions is that a policy-based rationale needs to be given for keeping the article in order for any notice to be taken of you. The main policy at issue in this case is Wikipedia:Notability. To demonstrate notability, independent, reliable sources discussing the topic in detail are required. Your own research is not enough, nor is future research from those associated with you, nor is the existence of a patent. The issues raised above of the name, content details, and state of the referencing are secondary issues and not cause in themselves for deletion. If you cannot point to suitable reliable sources then this has no hope of surviving no matter how important you feel the work is. SpinningSpark 13:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks obviously [WP:TOOSOON] to me. Maybe an extract of it could be merged into another article? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2020 (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.