Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICA (4-Icaroldichloridesulphate aka Icarus)

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. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICA (4-Icaroldichloridesulphate aka Icarus)

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

Article tagged as possible hoax but even if not a hoax, the article explicitly claims that the subject is "rare", "newly discovered", "no history of [U.S.] FDA approved medical use", "has only been available for sale since early 2010", etc. In other words, not a notable product. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following related page because it reads very similarly and was written by the same editor:

Icaroldichloridesulphate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or unverifiable original research. Hairhorn (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most likely a hoax (the name doesn't even make chemical sense). No hits on a Google search using various derivatives of the title. PDCook (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MuffledThud (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The descriptions are nonsense from a chemist's point of view. According to Chemical Abstracts, there is no chemical compound in the scientific literature that contains "icarol" in its name. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Looks like a hoax to me, especially given the claim that it is extracted from a rare Sri Lankan plant...Meodipt (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Obvious hoax. Nothing in the scientific literature despite the detailed pharmacological data in the articles. Cacycle (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2010 (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.