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. Sandstein 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clairol (chemical)[edit]

I don't believe this chemical compound exists; or, if it does, it has never appeared in the scientific literature. A search of multiple chemical databases (Chemical Abstracts, PubChem, etc.) using either the structure or the name "Clairol", turns up nothing. Even a similarity search turns up nothing even remotely similar to what is depicted in the chembox. It is unlikely that any peer-reviewed chemistry article has been published anywhere concering this compound if it does not appear in Chemical Abstracts. Furthermore, the reference in the article is completely unrelated - it has no connection to anything described. The reference is even dated years earlier than when "Clairol (chemical)" was supposedly first synthesized. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Make sure Image:Clairol Line.png is deleted along with the article. --Leyo 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, very funny. Delete. Well done for spotting this, Ed. I informed the originator, even though the user seems to be inactive. Walkerma (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely hoax. --Polaron | Talk 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom FWIW, some creative googling reveals that an "oxazolophane" appears to be a macrocycle containing an oxazole ring, which doesn't strike me as pertinent to this article. shoy (reactions) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice 'n Easy Delete Does she or doesn't she? Only her chemist knows for sure! What a dilemma. If you wrote a hoax article about "1,4-bis(4-hydroxypyridin-2-yl)-[1,3,4] oxadiazolidino[3,4-a][1,2,4,5]tetrazine-6,8-dione" or " C₁₄H₈N₆O₅" then there's no satisfaction because nobody would appreciate the joke. On the other hand, if you can get away with saying that there's a chemical called Clairol, it's quick to be exposed as a hoax. Let this one "dye". Mandsford (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"And then I said, 'That oxazole ring in my macrocycle wasn't there this morning!'" Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything on Google about a chemical named Clairol made by the University of Colorado. All references appear to refer to the shampoo. Artene50 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The active compound of the shampoo is not the chemical which named "Clairol". Also, I agree what Mandsford said. It must be a joke. Raymond "Giggs" K o 09:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sole reference is unrelated to the compound shown, was published before the compound is claimed to have been discovered, and is from a different university than where the discovery is claimed to have taken place. NOTE - this is the only article that User:Bryn C created. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2008 (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.