Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyhydromethalon


 * 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.  Kurykh  21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Polyhydromethalon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I see no proof. no google results. – i123Pie biocontribs 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy about verification via Google is very unhelpfull when dealing with information that pre-dates the internet age. Polyhdromethalon was a experimental product that failed over 70 years ago.  I am not at all surprised at the lack of information avaiable on the web.  I have however quoted a number of published sources.  I would content that published sources are far more valuable than web pages of dubious authenticity.Annie Gaylor (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any mention of it being 70 years ago. Sorry for any trouble caused. – i123Pie biocontribs 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Are you going to remove it from the Articles for Deletion list? Annie Gaylor (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Only Admins can do that. – i123Pie biocontribs 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Polyhydromethalon brings up no hits on Google Books, but it should, because Google Books includes both Fibrous Materials and Munich: The Price of Peace. Fibrous Materials is a limited preview, which means we can directly search inside it, but Polyhydromethalon, Daladier, Dupuis, and Rhône-Poulenc do not show up on searches. Going to page 193 reveals nothing at all pertinent. Fibrous Materials on Google Books--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The preview on google Books only goes up to page 172.  So how did you go to page 193 to look at it on Google Books? Taineyah (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I grabbed the scroll-bar and scrolled down real quickly until it hit page 193. I think most of the time it's more concerned about how much you view than what.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to show random chunks - just now it was missing pp.30-38, 40-49, 54-64... Seems to be consistent, the same pages were missing on two tries. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:AGF. – i123Pie biocontribs 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Smells like a  hoax to me. Klausness (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. An excellently written article, but the complete lack of sources makes this look a lot like a hoax. And, if the failure of this material played such a role in international politics, surely someone would have taken note of it online before now. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - see below; changed from Neutral for now, but suspicious; it smells hoaxy. Nothing in the parts of the Chawla book that one can see on Google Books. I can get Munich: The Price of Peace from a library, but probably not till the 27th or 28th. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of any mention anywhere else in the world.... DGG (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no mention of "polyhydromethalon" in Chemical Abstracts; therefore the chance that this chemical compound really exists (with this name) is essentially zero. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - within two days I should have access to a copy of Telford Taylor, Munich: The Price of Peace which should settle the question of whether this is sourced or a hoax. Suggest not closing till I report back. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have now consulted Munich: the Price of Peace. It is a different edition from the one quoted, but the number of pages, 1084, is the same. On the page quoted, p.913, there is nothing about Daladier: it is about the post-Munich German occupation of the Sudetenland. To be certain, I have read the book's passages about Daladier, and its eye-witness account of the actual signing of the Munich agreement. There is absolutely nothing relevant to the story in this article. I have changed my !vote above to Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (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.