Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full chemical name for titin


 * 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 Redirect to Longest word in English. In case somebody wants to copy this and transwikify (if a willing victim can be found), I did not delete the article but only made it into a redirect to Longest word in English as suggested. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Full chemical name for titin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Probably about the most useless page on Wikipedia right now. Trivia in the form of a 190K page that no one will ever actually read. Oh, there is a typo in the name at about the 10,000th character. Fram (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Useless? Well, for one thing, you could try testing the visual editor with it, eh?  Browsing for sources, there seem to be lots of people out there having trouble putting this famous word into their documents.  If we can handle it, then we perform a valuable service in making it available.  The topic is obviously an adjunct or appendix to the main article about titin and, per WP:SIZE it seems sensible to split onto this separate page. Andrew (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Migrate to Wikisource. The information, while interesting, possibly fundamentally violates WP:Technical as its usage is inherently technical and the intricacies of the structure as indicated by the word itself are both difficult (impossible?) for the "average" reader to understand and impossible to summarize in any other way as this is just one word that has no synonyms. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 19:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment; what is the reliable source for this name? I couldn't verify it from pre-Wikipedia (ca. 2006) sources. Fram (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki to WikiSource. Wikipedia simply is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Thus, using an article for the full name of something is inappropriate to Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature.-- danntm T C 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or Migrate' 90% of wikipedia could be classified as "Trivia" and useless. If anything this opens up curious minds to the world of Chemical naming lexicography and should be on this page as to WHY the name is so long. Or migrate this to the article on chemical lexicography as the longest, but, again, because of  WP:SIZE this article should stand alone as a stub    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.8 (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Migrate to Wikisource. This article does not belong on Wikipedia because the whole page is devoted to just the word. The rest of the technical information is on the main article. The only reason to go to the page is for the novelty of the long word. Other long-worded articles have content other than just the long word. Thus, it is not an encyclopedic article by itself. Ideally, it should be merged, but since that is obviously out of the question, we should move it to Wikisource so we can still reference it. Once moved, it should be linked to in the main article. cyberdog 958 Talk  22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikisource. Articles need to contain more than a single word (even if that single word is longer than most articles). As has been previously stated, other articles about really long words are legitimate article that do more than just spell out the long word. According to comments on Talk:Titin, clear consensus has already emerged against putting the whole name of titin in the article. As such, I believe the best solution is to transwiki. As the longest word in any language, the full name of titin is definitely of literary significance and appropriate for inclusion in wikisource. We could even provide a link to the wikisource page on the Linguistic significance section of the titin article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Longest word in English. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this page is far from an encyclopedia article. Transwiki it to Wikisource if they'll take it (although wikisource:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes says that "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text") or to Wiktionary if they'll take it (although I'm skeptical that it'll meet wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion), or maybe add it to Wikidata's item for titin (Q74314) if the Wikidata software can handle a 189,819-character string. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Longest word in English, not independently notable. GiantSnowman 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reading the article on titin, it seems that since the protein varies from "~27,000 to ~33,000 amino acids", there isn't just one name to give the protein anyway.  The content of the article therefore can't even represent what the article purports to be.  It's just a meaningless plaything.  Deli nk (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good keep rationale.  I don't think this fits well in any project, but people are welcome to try to transwiki it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I see nothing encyclopedic about this. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think there is any point of keeping this article in wikipedia. This is a IUPAC name. If we want to write IUPAC name of any of the large organic compound then the name will be long. Therefore, I am not sure that you can consider it as the largest word in any language. May be in Titin page it can be mentioned that the IUPAC name of Titin is the largest word in english. But I don't find any point of copying the entire name. This article is completely useless. Unatnas1986 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though the word is mentioned in the article titin, readers cannot really know anything about the word through the article. -- Truthteller2001 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Truthteller2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete or Transwikify. Unencyclopedic and not notable. —teb728 t c 10:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwikify. I'm not one to cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but even I have to suggest this is too trivial. Darmokand (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2014 (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.