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The result was keep per WP:SNOW, almost a speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. The revised version seems to attract consensus to keep; if one assumes Reyk's comment to mean the current article could be kept now that there is no point in WP:TNT, that consensus is unanimous. Moving the page to the English title can be done by the standard editorial process. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

URu2Si2[edit]

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

The one thing that the article says about its topic, that it's a form of uranium, is false. It isn't a form of uranium, it's a compound of three elements of which uranium is one. There isn't even an indication of significance for this possibly arbitrarily chosen compound. Delete for now unless someone makes at least a viable, and accurate, stub out of it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of literature on this compound (see here). I've corrected the error and added two references. -- 120.19.181.150 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as it stands, this article is unverifiable, unsourced, and the minimal content is false. This compound is no more a form of uranium than methanol is a form of oxygen. From poking around a bit, I found a few sources talking about this compound having some interesting electron properties, but I am unconvinced that this would be sufficient for an article in a non-specialist's encyclopedia. Even if it is, there is no conceivable way any of this "content" could be used in a real article, so WP:TNT would apply. Reyk _YO! 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources, actually, and there are further articles on the compound in other reputable journals, so that WP:NCHEM is satisfied. Furthermore, the current state of this Wikipedia article is not false (I presume you looked at it before I started editing). And I'm not sure why Wikipedia cannot have specialist articles. I thought it was supposed to. -- 120.19.181.150 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Errors have been corrected in the article. Cited sources indicate notability. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article that I nominated for deletion has been replaced with factual, sourced material. Largoplazo (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of high quality academic papers show this is a thing. The fact that it is a specialist subject has nothing to do with notability. JMWt (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the previous quality of the article, it's a notable topic. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and move to Uranium ruthenium silicide. I think we generally prefer English names for chemical compounds. Pburka (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The errors have been corrected, and citations added. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2016 (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.