Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyaline oxide

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyaline oxide

It appears that there is no public record of this chemical compound. A search of Chemical Abstracts, a chemical database from the Americal Chemical Society which aims to collect scientific references to every chemical compound made, turns up no results for either "hyaline oxide" or "hyaline". The reference cited in the article is from the journal Microgram, a publication of the US Drug Enforcement Agency. The journal's website says that archives are permanently unavailable to the public.[1] So the article hyaline oxide is not verifiable and therefore subject to deletion according to Wikipedia policy. Delete. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google scholar and ISI also give no result.--Stone 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)--Stone 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as possible hoax. (Or maybe just some weird misspelling.) Any extant chemical would be mention online somewhere. eaolson 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, and the links indeed suggest a hoax. --DrTorstenHenning 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete. This doesn't exist. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW, I don't believe this is a hoax or misinformation, just something that's been reported only in a non-public venue. --Ed (Edgar181)
• Delete, much as Wikipedia should appreciate the liberation of 'hidden knowledge' (if it's real), verifiability comes first. …I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of "non-public publication". Femto 10:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:V. (As an aside, referring to the specific contents of a specific classified publication by someone who has reference to it is usually a violation of that classification, at least without specific approval by one of a number of named government officials. There were about 23 when I last had a clearance, with the most recent list probably being in Executive Order 13292.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Is this really "classified information" (which, I understand, has a specific meaning with actual laws and things) or just a journal that isn't available to the public? Police uniforms and badges aren't available to the public, either, but they're not classified. eaolson 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article presently says "classified journal". Unless that has a technical meaning I'm not familiar with, I would expect that to mean a journal which legally "publishes" classified information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, that's talking about its use as a bioweapon. The Microgram article is different. But it's a trivial quibble; I was just curious, above. eaolson 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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.