The following discussion is an archived debate of the oposed 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 per WP:SNOW. This is a hoax, and/or a non-notable compound, possibly fictional compound. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclomethane[edit]

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

There is no such thing as cyclomethane. The cited reference containing the word "cyclomethane" is just a typo or mistake, and obviously not a reliable source. ChemNerd (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a mistake, a hoax, or WP:OR. (I was the one who put the hoax tag on the article).--gdfusion (talk|contrib) 02:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a response to a question that has since been removed:

The sentence about quantum effects is nonsense as written. ChemNerd (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedily as possible Nothing but a HOAX. Carbene?--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomenclature is used in at least a few noteworthy cases: [1], [2] Don't be so quick to declare hoax. Fryedk (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those uses of the term are clearly simple mistakes. One refers to cyclomethane as a chlorinated solvent, which contradicts the content of the article (and contradicts the chemical name). The other example is in a list that also contains other chemical name errors (the patent is from a non-English speaking country and contains lots of language errors). ChemNerd (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either hoax or error. Cyclomethane simply does not exist. -- 101.117.110.81 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of the article aside, Are there Single Purpose Accounts going on here? Two IP's with AFD as most of their vote history? Bobcats2b (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Seems to be a hoax. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a joke. Maproom (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think it's entirely a hoax, in that it shows up in passing in a few patents and two book hits, with nothing that explains what this is supposed to be. I get the impression that it's a mistaken name for something else; two of the book hits specifically deny that it can exist. At any rate there's no source for the claims made in the article, and frankly they sound like chemical double-talk to me. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way, Jose. Chipka (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2014 (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.