Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No consensus, with hopes that the folks at WikiProject Chemistry can come up with a better name & more concrete criteria. &mdash; Caknuck 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names
AfDs for this article: Talk:List of chemical compounds with unusual names/Votes for Deletion 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Extreme case of Original Research with entirely subjective inclusion criterion. Deciding which names are "unusual" enough to be added to the list violates WP:NOR. Of course, this isn't a list of chemical compounds with unusual names, since most chemical compounds have unusual names; it's a List of chemical compounds with names that some people may find amusing, and as such it has no place on Wikipedia. This survived an AFD last year, but standards were lower then, and most of the "keeps" appeared to be based on WP:INTERESTING. Masaruemoto 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep provided it can be rewritten to meet Scientific citation guidelines. I dispute the claim of extreme OR as it does not violate WP:OR or WP:V. It does not introduce a new theory or method of solution, original ideas, define new terms, new definitions of pre-existing terms, etc and all the information is verifiable (all the molecules and their names can be confirmed to exist). The criterion of "unusual" is not OR/subjective if verifiable, reliable sources say the names are unusual. The Bristol University page is referenced. Exactly which part of WP:OR do you claim it violates? It can be made encyclopedic by improving the etymology. Dbromage  [Talk]  03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So the article is largely based on a page called Molecules with Silly or Unusual Names where the author introduces it with; "People from all over the world have sent me so many contributions". I'm even more convinced this should be deleted now. Just because some people have emailed Paul May (who?) and said "I think this one sounds a bit silly, add it to your page" doesn't mean that this is suitable for an encyclopedia. This is no better than those stupid email lists that go around. Masaruemoto 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again. Exactly which part of WP:OR do you claim it violates? It obviously passes WP:V and if the journal articles cited below consider it to be a reliable source, then it passes WP:RS too. Inline citations and etymologies can certainly be improved. Addendum: the above rationale "most chemical compounds have unusual names"is itself subjective. Most chemical/rock names are not unusual to chemists or geologists. Dbromage  [Talk]  04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It violates WP:V because something being "unusual" is in no way verifiable. You can verify that so and so thinks something sounds unusual, but "unusual" is one of those POV adjectives you generally cannot assert on Wikipedia.  Ford MF 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you can't claim that that's a reliable source (source for what, anyway?) merely because other sites remark it is amusing and link to it. Peer reviewed journals cannot prove to anyone here that this article is scientifically sound, because it's not based on anything scientific and is not a scientific article.  Ford MF 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you also say that W. V. Metanomski, "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances", Chem. Int., 1987, 9, 211-215. is not a reliable source? Dbromage  [Talk]  06:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it fails WP:V if you are claiming those journal articles you cited prove Paul May's little page is a reliable source; most of them are mirrors of a clinchem.org page which states "If there is a resource that you think would be useful to other readers of this journal, please let us know". So Paul May's page only appears on one of their link pages because a readers has submitted it. That same links section explains it includes links "that may amuse", which is why this was added, to amuse. This is original research because it is based on the personal opinions of Paul May (?) and the "people from all over the world" who have sent him suggestions.
 * Delete that link is maintained by "Paul May" and I dont think it counts as a reliable source.   I think the list is full of loosely associated trivial items Corpx 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. On what grounds do you say the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol is not a reliable source? Dbromage  [Talk]  04:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not published by the school of chemistry.  It is just hosted on the school of chemistry domain by a professor.   Anything with *.edu is not automatically notable Corpx 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul May's web site is considered by very many chemists to be a very valuable chemical education site. Yes, it does aim to get students interest by amusing them as well as teaching them. His "molecule of the month" competition is linked from hundreds of sites, to the extent that Paul May's web site is notable or close to being notable in its own right. I'm quite sure the Bristol Chemistry department is delighted that he spends time maintaining this site. He has written material from the site in journals such as "Education in Chemistry". "Just hosted ... by a professor" does not get close to describing the importance of this web site. --Bduke 04:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great and all, but explaining why Paul May is notable doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not this article is encyclopedic. Guy can write all the yay-chemistry bromides he wants on his site.  In that context, yeah, this article is totally cool.  However, we are talking about what belongs on Wikipedia.  Ford MF 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was merely correcting what seems a glib dismissal of Peter May's site as a source. My opinion on this debate was given earlier and is below. --Bduke 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me you were implying that the notability of May in some way supports the persistence of this material on Wikipedia, and was an extension of your 'keep' vote. Ford MF 05:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. That's not the question I asked. The page is cited in articles published in refereed journals so they apparently think it's a reliable source. Dbromage  [Talk]  04:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is given trivial mentions in google scholar, I do not think it is being "reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Corpx 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if cited Assuming that sufficient citations are added, I don't see the problem. It may seem at face to be a list of names which some people may find amusing, but indeed it is not. There is a striking similarity to List of unusual personal names (this article may be better), in that while the title classifies the names as "unusual", the criteria used within the article is far stricter. Indeed, the names are not "unusual" in that they "sound funny" (which applies to a lot more chemical compounds), but they are unusual because they strongly resemble something else, something that chemical compounds do not usually do. Calgary 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV. "Unusual name" is an opinion.  --musicpvm 04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Unusual" is defined in Wiktionary as "differing in some way from the norm" and Calgary summed the perspective up very well. Chemical names do not usually resemble something else and therefore the names in the article are, by definition, unusual. Maybe the article needs to be renamed rather than deleted? The rationale that "most chemical compounds have unusual names" is itself a POV/opinion. Most chemical names are systematic. See also the Metanomski paper "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances" (op cit). Dbromage  [Talk]  04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If we were to rename it to make it more specific we'd have to change it to something along the lines of List of chemical compounds whose names resemble something else, which to me seems overly pedantic. I think the title is good enough, as the names are unusual. If you want to get more specific, the article smply needs to explain why the names are unusual at the top of the page in addition to after each individual name. Which is a change I may make right now. Calgary 04:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's already there, just in prose rather than "this is a list of...". Calgary 04:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There are other reliable and independent sources listing these ase chemical molecules with silly names, for instance  "Storyville: Molecular scientists have a word for it." The Independent on Sunday,   Feb 1, 2004  by David Randall. He also finds amusing "Curious chloride" and"Moronic acid" from the Bristol University list. I liked the reference in the article which sought to answer the question "Is an Arsole aromatic?" In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical. Most compounds do not have names selected to be whimsical or amusing. A ref specifically saying that "arsole" has an unfortunate silly name is  "Chemical Cock-ups: A Story of How Not to Name a Chemical Compound Created" BBC, 13th April 2006. Then they in turn cite the Bristol site. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes fun of the silly name of Moronic acid at  in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Edison 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep weak keep possible merge. On the face of it this article looked like it was another facile list composed for the original author's amusement. However, it actually appears to have some merit (imho) and identifies a clear tendency for humour in the official naming conventions of chemical compounds. References could be expanded - I am sure I saw something once on the BBC about this kind of thing - and robust policing of the article could result in it being just what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopaedias.Dick G 05:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Have revisited the article as this AfD seems to have taken hold. It would appear that most of the compounds have their own articles (I won't comment on their individual notability) and it might make more sense to put any reference to the unusual evolution of the compound's name into its own article. Lists such as this do tend to antagonise editors and are in the grey area of various WP guidelines. I still feel some of the content is worthwhile and interesting - not to mention externally referenced - but it could find better homes.Dick G 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dbromage [Talk]  06:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG delete as subjective, inherently POV, and profoundly unencyclopedic. Lists of things with silly names?  I can't believe we're even arguing about this.  I don't care if other places have asserted that these chemical compounds indeed do have "funny" names, such articles are little more than scientific fluff pieces.  This is humor, not information, and has no place in an encyclopedia.  Ford MF 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article title is unusual names. Given that most chemical names are systematic and do not usually resemble something else, the names in the article are, by definition, unusual and this list is therefore not subjective. The List of unusual personal names is a good analogy. Dbromage  [Talk]  05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Ford MF 05:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, i.e. that the other article merely exists, as an argument. I'm using the same rationale for the word "unusual", i.e. "differing in some way from the norm". Any chemical compound name which does not follow the normal, systematic naming convention is by definition unusual. This is not a subjective criterion. Would you be happier with List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions? See also the Metanomski paper (op cit). Dbromage  [Talk]  07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Namechange and rewrite? Okay.  Honestly, yes, if List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions is what that list is (and if so, the article needs some textual rewrite to make this clear), I would be fine with that.  As it stands, the list appears to make no attempt to assert any reason for its existence on Wikipedia, and seems rather heavily dependent on non-IUPAC names that are kind of interesting and funny.  It's trying to be cute, not comprehensive, and as such is not an appropriate article.  If it were to change to BE a List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions that strives towards completeness instead of whimsy, I think it'd be a fine article.  Ford MF 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're stating that, since a similar article exists, this one deserves to be kept. Perhaps List of unusual personal names deserves an AfD nom, too. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not and however many times you say it doesn't make it true. I am stating that List of unusual personal names has a clearly definition of "unusual" for inclusion. I am also stating that the Metanomski paper also has clear, objective criteria in deciding what chemical names are "unusual" which can be applied to this article. That's called a precedent, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you wish to nominate List of unusual personal names for deletion, that's up to you. Let the community decide on the merits of your nomination. Dbromage  [Talk]  00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the one thing the list DOES NOT HAVE is an unambiguous criterion for inclusion, and you can keep on saying it does, yet it doesn't make THAT true. Is it compounds that aren't formed by IUPAC standards?  Nope.  Is it compounds that sound like something else?  Er, no not that either.  It's a jumble of things that some people have found amusing, and there is NO logic to the list other than that.  If the list has, as you say, CLEAR and OBJECTIVE criteria for inclusion, please, like I'm a moron, explain to me what they are.  Ford MF 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and POV. "Unusual" seems to mean "sounds dirty to high school boys". J I P  | Talk 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unusual means "differing in some way from the norm" and chemical naming conventions are usually systematic. Nobody has yet pointed out exactly which part of WP:OR the article violates. The article editors do not introduce a new theory or method of solution, original ideas, define new terms, etc. It does not violate WP:NOT(1) either as it is not a loosely associated topic. Chemical names do not usually resemble something else. Dbromage  [Talk]  06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Apparently it sounds dirty to scientists as well. Who knew? Calgary 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. "Unusual" seems to be a specific issue relating chemical nomenclature, e.g. W. V. Metanomski, "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances", Chem. Int., 1987, 9, 211-215. Wikibooks also notes that there are "unusual names" in Organic Chemistry Nomenclature.  Dbromage  [Talk]  07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add that somebody has decided the article was worthy of inclusion in Unusual articles which "are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or something you wouldn't expect to find in Encyclopdia Britannica". I agree this is not original research. JustAnotherChemist 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider name change I also have a book called "The name game" on the same topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. K Loening in the Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences (1989) and the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature have both cited a paper called Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances by W. V. Metanomski (Chem. Int. 1987, 9, 21 1-215). So there's two reliable sources that are not the Bristol web site (in fact both predate the WWW). Since the topic has been the subject of at least two scholarly works, this makes it notable and verifiable. The remaining concerns can be dealt with editorially. Maybe the "List of" part of the article name could be removed and just call it Chemical compounds with unusual names, discussing naming conventions and what makes them unusual. Does that sound encyclopedic? Dbromage  [Talk]  06:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. I am a chemist and a long time reader of Wikipedia but never been a contributor. This may be a new account but I can assure you I am not an SPA. Dbromage is right in saying that "unusual name" has a specific non-subjective meaning in chemical nomenclature. It does not necessarily mean something that it sounds funny or dirty. There are occasional cases where an official name is intentionally funny. A notable example is that the C60H60 molecule was originally called Soccerane because it resembles a soccer ball, before being named Buckminsterfullerene. Cadaverine is another. Some unusual molecular names were covered in the Jan 17 2000 issue of New Scientist magazine. The article does need to be cleaned up and needs more citations but that is not a reason to delete it. JustAnotherChemist 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — JustAnotherChemist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. This is not OR because the selection was made by some of the sources that are referenced, not by the Wikipedia editors. Humorous or not, there are books and articles published about it by serious publishers and journals. Renaming it could help, but definitely not to something like "List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions". Some of these "funny" names, such as arsole, do follow systematic naming conventions. --Itub 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Itub. This is not common listcruft. Thin Arthur 08:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If all of these selections were united by some strictly defined quality, then this list would be legitimate. (Some of them don't violate standard naming procedures, such as titanic acid.) Whether something is "unusual", in the sense of "amusing", cannot be verified. In response to Itub: This is a case in which journal publication does not guarantee inclusion. The articles to which you refer were not verifiable themselves - they themselves were collections of names that their authors found humorous. If someone can come up with a definition of "unusual" against which names can be tested, fine. Until then, this list does not belong on Wikipedia. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That journal publication has been cited by the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature. Are you saying they are also wrong? Dbromage  [Talk]  23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep saying these journal articles make the Wiki list "verifiable" and "not wrong". What you're not hearing from the dissenting editors here is that that is irrelevant, since opinions--and that's what we're dealing with here--cannot be "wrong".  If you change the title of the list to what it really is, List of chemical compounds, the names of which some chemists have found amusing, you can see how absurd it's existence is.  Ford MF 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not patently OR, but it is the very definition of trivial subject matter. No amount of cleanup would change the fact that it is a collection of bits of information disconnected from a larger, independent encyclopedic subject. VanTucky  (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and send the nominator to the wikidungeon where he or she should have to copy out (by hand) WP:NOR until he or she actually understands what it means. This is standard, source-based concatenation. Personally, I would like to rename it to List of unexpected terminology in chemistry or something to that effect, just so that we can include the HUHAHA method and spin tickling. Such list deletions deny Wikipedia a useful opportunity to keep track onarticles outside of the category structure, and obvious deny our users of a tool which might interest them. Some editors who comment do not seem to wish to write an encyclopedia which anyone would actually want to read. Physchim62 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sent dozens of articles to their deletion because they were original research, AFDs which were supported by numerous editors and admins familiar with WP:NOR and deletion policy in general. Some of the chemists !voting "keep" may know more about chemicals than I do, but I know more about policy than they do. And that's what matters in AFD. Masaruemoto 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mindlessly adhering to policy is not the be all and end all of your (and our) purpose in life. Your comment reads very much like "I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm an expert on deletion so I'll nominate it for deletion because I can". See WP:FCNP. Thin Arthur 11:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, wholly subjective. While we could certainly cite (perhaps even reliably) a List of ugly people, that doesn't mean we should have one. --Eyrian 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As has already been explained, this is not subjective. Unusualness is an objective critereon as discussed in the two scholarly works cited. Dbromage  [Talk]  23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep my first instinct was to delete, but after seeing the sources listed I don't see how the nominator can say that it is an "extreme case of Original Research". As far as the concern that there are "subjective inclusion criterion" I don't see how that is a problem so long as the editor to the article only talk about chemical compounds that where cited as unusually named by a reputable source. Jon513 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have changed my opinion after I read what Ford MF said about actually looking up the references (that the sources he could find only say that the chemical exist not that it is unusually named).  11:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Definite keep: for a number of reasons:
 * 1) the second nomination is a violation of the deletion policy which states that time should pass for a second nomination if the first nomination fails. See . The closing admin for that nomination was very weak in that he was unable to offer any guidelines with respect to the future of the page. The result was simply: keep. therefore a new nomination is uncalled for.
 * 2) the article is three years old with countless editors contributing in good faith to the article including at least 20 people with a degree in chemistry even at PhD level.
 * 3) the article plays an important role in the area of chemical nomenclature. This is a junior level topic in chemistry and also a very difficult topic to master. See IUPAC nomenclature. While systematic naming of molecules is important and concise, it will come as a relief to readers of wikipedia that chemists have an alternative way of naming chemicals for everyday use. The list also gives an impression what chemists inspire in the naming game: if the molecule looks like a window call it fenestrane or like a barrel call it barrelene. This is not obvious to a lay person. In astronomy stars are given boring numbers and in biology species get somebodies latinized name. It is instructive to read that in chemistry the alternative rules are very lacks and often based on visual clues.  In summary: the list is indispensable when it comes to explaining chemical nomenclature.
 * 4) The Scientific citation guidelines are very important in this discussion. The chemists frequenting the chemistry pages have a special duty trying to explain aspects of chemistry to the laymen. They are permitted to do so without the usual rigorous citation policies because in many cases concepts obvious to the initiated but not to the uninitiated are not easily sourced in the literature. Instead emphasis is put on controversiality: if something is considered controversial then additional citations are in order. In summary:  WP:NOR does not apply
 * 5) I see from the discussion above there are several additional citations that back up this article.Including them in the article will only strengthen it.
 * 6) Regarding User:Masaruemoto who initiated the deletion proces. His claim that deletion standards were lower when the article was first nominated is unsubstantiated. While endorsing deletion of this list I see from his edit history that he actively contributes to such lists as list of cheerleaders and List of films about computers. Are these lists more important? (they are currently not nominated for deletion). personally I feel these lists are worthless but I feel no urge to nominate them simply because I do not want spoil other people's fun. More importantly I think I would not stand a chance having these lists deleted because whereas only students of chemistry care about chemistry pages like the one we are discussing most men would be interested in cheerleaders. And that is an issue not addressed in the current deletion policies: when it comes to specialised pages the voting power of a few specialists should outweigh the voting power a nominal majority
 * 7) Warning: I used to take the quality of admin for granted but given the recent upheaval around List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something See  I am no longer sure. The attention tag on top of this page possibly means that admins decide something irrespective of the prior discussion and then start arguing with other admins. Who is supervising admins these days? V8rik 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) That's not a policy. I'm not even sure it's a guideline.  At any rate, it doesn't really matter, since subsequent AfD's give other editors who're not watching the AfDs ALL THE TIME, like me, to weigh in.
 * 2) The variety of editors and length of existence are not really good indicators of an article's suitability for inclusion. The force and variety of debate on this page is proof of that.
 * 3) While I don't doubt what you're saying is true, this article isn't that. Since, as several editors have pointed out, quite a few of the compounds listed DO adhere to convention.  So it's not really "about" naming alternatives.  And even if it was, it should be called that.
 * 4 & 5) Again, citations are used to assert the truth of something. You cannot assert the truth of an opinion.  Therefore, the citations here are meaningless.
 * 6) If the article is indeed 3 years old, then yeah, deletion standards have changed since then. Also, frivolous as you think it might be, list of cheerleaders has a fairly unambiguous criterion for inclusion.  Something that absolutely cannot be said for this list.  This list's "importance" is not at issue here.  Its subjectivity, and therefore unencyclopedic nature, are.
 * 7) What, if anything, does this have to do with the argument at hand? Ford MF 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; That's got to be the funniest (unintentionlly), and most off-topic rant I've read on AFD in a while. Admin-conspiracies, and I'm only nominating articles to "spoil other people's fun"? Bizarre. We need more characters like you around here, if only for the amusement of the AFD regulars...
 * Comment. That's bordering on a personal attack. Dbromage  [Talk]  23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * STOP THIS AFD! It's true, I added a category to List of cheerleaders. Oh, the foolishness of my actions, all my future AFD nominations should be held in contempt for such wrongdoing. Every time people see my name in an AFD, they will shout "That's the editor who added a category to List of cheerleaders, what a fool!", and "How dare Masaruemoto edit a people-related list and then AFD a science-related list in the same day! Let's !vote keep." What an arsole. Masaruemoto 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly just a collection of amusing names for schoolkids to chortle at over breakfast. Completely useless here. Delete doktorb wordsdeeds 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WOW that's POV. schoolkids "chortling" indeed. Bulldog123 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to both. Did you note that the inherent unusualness of these names have been the subject of two scholarly works? This is not a list for schoolkids, not OR and selection has been done by people with qualifications in chemistry (predating the Bristol web site). Dbromage  [Talk]  23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep So what if schoolkids do chortle over this? Considering all the dumb stuff in Wikipedia... geez, how many Scooby Doo articles are there that never get nominated?... I'd much rather that a schoolkid take an interest in chemistry.  Better to have one article about chemical compounds with unusual names than 100 articles about the episode of "Charmed" someone watched this afternoon.  I'm afraid that there's a faux sense of being intellectual that pervades AfD, with lots of articles nominated about things technical (chemistry, mathematics, mechanical engineering) and few nominated about things that can be found on a variety of websites, like episode guides. Mandsford 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as potentially useful for students of organic chemistry and nanotechnology. This should be a chemical education article. Regarding WP:V for usual/unusual, IUPAC must think that there are criteria since Unusual names assigned to chemical substances appeared in their journal. I would like to see more intentionally funny names (e.g. Barrelene, Bastardane) rather than the unintentionally funny ones (e.g. titanic acid) since it takes some synthetic talent to make a molecule look like something intersting. --Kkmurray 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't seem to go anywhere. Not for me, at least.  Ford MF 03:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just because we can cite someone's opinion doesn't mean we should have an article on it. As another editor pointed out, we could find reliable sources to create a List of ugly people, but that doesn't mean it should exist. I'm seeing the usual intellectual snobbery that often appears in afd discussions, ie that we should keep articles about "serious" subjects, even when they are unencyclopedic, because we've got articles on "unimportant" articles like Pokemon. Articles should be judged on POLICY, not on how many academics will be interested in the article. Crazysuit 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In that case, would you care to name exactly which policy the article violates? The chemical substances named are known to exist and their inherent unusualness is backed up by at least one book, at least one peer-reviewed journal article and the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature. It is not OR and passed WP:V and WP:RS. Remaining issued can be dealt with edtiorally. This is not a reason to delete. Dbromage  [Talk]  23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because these sorts of unique and interesting articles are what helps make Wikipedia special and different from paper encyclopedias. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but "it's interesting" or "it's unique" are not arguments for keeping grounded in policy or guideline. These are practically "I like it" arguments, and were debunked long ago. VanTucky  (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In that case you may wish to nominate Unusual articles and every article contained therein for deletion. Dbromage  [Talk]  00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As you have repeatedly failed to understand Dbromage, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. VanTucky  (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As you and others have repeatedly failed to understand, I am not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument at all. The very fact that this article is included in Unusual articles suggests that the Wikipedia community considers it to be a valuable contribution and meets at least one of the two criteria for inclusion (one of which is "something you would not expect to find in a standard encyclopedia"). Dbromage  [Talk]  01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (I've already voted for deletion):
 * If we don't consider "Einsteinium" unusual, then why should we consider "Dickite", named after Dr. W. Thomas Dick, unusual? This article is not about naming conventions; it is about "whimsy", irony, and penis jokes. It even explicitly states that these names are legitimate: "Some compounds whose names derive legitimately from their chemical makeup or from the geographic region where they may be found include:..." (emphasis mine). Quoting from WP:LISTS: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list.  Even if it might 'seem obvious' what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit" (emphasis in original). Are "peculiar", "startling", and "whimsical" explicit criteria? No. Nor has "unusual" been defined - with some degree of specificity in this context or a similar one - by a reputable source.
 * I'm surprised that no one has brought up notability yet. Seeing as this article is not about naming conventions, as argued above, an article about "whimsical" chemical names is not a notable topic. Nor would it be notable if it were explicitly about certain chemists' senses of humor. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This can be dealt with edtiorially. The information is verifiable and reliable sources are cited, and it is not original research. I suggested making it not a list and making it an article about naming conventions, and the compounds listed as examples of those with "unusual names" as described in the Metanomski paper. Dbromage  [Talk]  00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't seem to find the Metanomski paper. Could you provide us with Metanomski's definition of "unusual"? Furthermore, please address the specific points I have brought up, especially (but not exclusively, e.g. Dickite) my claim that the article has nothing to do with naming conventions in the first place. (If you make it an article about naming conventions, then it will be an article about a completely different subject.) --Birdman1 talk/contribs 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. These are unusual according to .. who exactly?  Just because someone thinks the name sounds funny doesn't mean it is.  Unless some strong sourcing can be found that says "here are some unusually named chemical compounds" then this is naught but OR.  I am not fooled by the existence of the "sources" given, these are to source the existence of the names and do nothing to establish their "unusual-ness". ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did you actually look at the paper "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances" (op cit) which was published in a peer-reviered chemistry journal? Dbromage  [Talk]  23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Dbromage. --Bduke 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there are other "list of X with unusual names" -Yyy 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. BUT there is a valid precedent: "Are some lists where what is to be included difficult to define valid? - Yes". I am not a chemist so I don't understand the minutae of the subject, but it looks like "unusual" is difficult to define. So what? That still makes the list valid. Thin Arthur 11:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't actually state what should and should not be included in the list, and yet it's valid? What does validity even mean at that point?  Ford MF 04:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, that precedent doesn't apply here. That archive note is about lists of things popularly conceived to exist but are difficult to lay hard definitions on.  "Ethnic groups" are not subjective.  Ethnic groups exist objectively, but have debated or controversial definitions.  The "unusualness" of a chemical compound's name cannot be said to objectively exist.  Ford MF 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   —  Dbromage  [Talk]  00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Unusual chemistry names are either names the chemists find unusual, or names that other people do, and there are plenty of sources for both of them. This visual nature of chemistry makes it inevitable that allusive and whimsical names will be used, and this is so striking a phenomenon that academic books have been written upon that very subject, and cited above. Those are enough to demonstrate that first, the subject is encyclopedic and notable and second, that the individual entries can be based upon valid secondary sources. This is the way the subject works, and those who do not understand this cn at least find out from the references--that is what they are for. DGG (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the references? Ah, okay, not to get totally tedious with this, but:


 * References 1-5 are not things I can look up from here. 6, for Arsole is an abstract that does not mention anything about the name, unusual or no.  The joke here seems to be that "arsoles" are debateably "aromatic".  7 more stuff I can't check from here.  8 costs money to look at.  9, 10, More citations you can't check outside a university library.  11, for Cinnamaldehyde, which is the first complete, easily accessible reference, doesn't actually mention anything about the compound's name being unusual.  It mentions that "Cinnamaldehyde" isn't the IUPAC name, which the article also lists.  But that's about it.


 * 12-15, more unreachable references. 16, for "Fartox" or "Earthcide" lists approximately fifty other apparently non-IUPAC names for the compound, some of which seem equally unusual (e.g. Fungiclor, Turfcide) but are not included in our article.  Yet no unusualness of any of the names is remarked upon.  17, 18, 19, more inaccessible stuff.  20, shows a bunch of Hirsutane molecules, which I guess look like goats when they're upside down?  It doesn't actually say that anywhere, but thanks.  21 appears to be the same reference as 20, but it's a broken link so it doesn't matter anyway.  22 only asserts that the Hantzsch-Widman nomenclature for a monocyclic, heterocyclic compound with three ring atoms is, in fact, "Irene".  23, 24, inaccessible.  25 is a textless About.com article that proves only that such a thing as Penguinone exists.  There's a picture, and maybe it looks like a penguin, but who knows?  The reference certainly doesn't say anything about it one way or the other.


 * 26, inaccessible. 27 is an abstract and says nothing about "Rudolphomycin" being named for La Boheme (I am, of course, in all these cases, not disputing that this may be true, just asserting that these are shitty references).   And finally we have two more references, 28 and 29 I'd have to take a day off work to go to the library to check out.


 * I am not arguing with the hypothetical idea that a good, encyclopedic article could be written on the subject of non-IUPAC chem names maybe. But this article ain't it.  If an article doesn't clearly state what it is, or a list what exactly should be on it, then it is a bad article.  And these references seem to assert only that these compounds exist (which no one is arguing about), nothing more.  Ford MF 09:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that why WikiProject Chemistry exists, so people who do have access to these references can verify the information? Why not let some actual chemists peer review the article? That's how science in general works, too. Thin Arthur 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment agree there. 90% of the references presented in Wiki chemistry are not open access. I for one hope that more scientific literature will become freely accessible but this is not the case at present V8rik 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's not Wikipedia's problem or the problem of an individual reader who doesn't have access to those references. If a reference is inaccessible to you does that make it a bad reference? Of course not. You can rely on somebody who does have that reference and/or is an expert in the field. It's no different to a reference being in a language you don't speak. You can rely on somebody who does speak that language to confirm the reference backs up the claim.
 * Going by either vote count (even though this isn't a vote) and the strength of the arguments on both sides, I cannot see any clear consensus and I doubt there will be any. A lot of the concerns seem to be edtorial rather than policy. I'd be happy with a finding of no concensus and then let WikiProject Chemistry peer review the article.Thin Arthur 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is a list of names that sound funny. How do you source that? DCEdwards1966 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not a list of funny names: it is a list of unusual names by association outside systematic naming. V8rik 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except this is not a List of unsystemically named compounds. If someone wants to make that article, sure, go ahead.  It'll be a million miles long and unmaintainable, incidentally, but at least it will have clear criterion for inclusion.  Ford MF 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment: How are "Diabolic acid", "Fluoboric Acid" or "Unununium" outside systematic naming conventions? "Cummingtonite", "Dickite" and "Thebacon" also follow standard naming conventions. Cummingtonite is named for the location if its discovery. Dickite is named for its discoverer. And, Thebacon is named for the compound it is derived from. The only reason they are on the list is because, as I said, they sound funny. DCEdwards1966 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It already appears to be sourced. Thin Arthur 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently unsourcable & point of view, just by the article conception & title.  "Unusual" itself is a fluffy little peacock term, & using it as the basis of an article is a bad idea.  --mordicai. 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to a List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions as proposed above.  --mordicai. 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. How can you claim that it is inherently unsourcable, POV and "unusual" is a peacock term when one of the references is an article called "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances" published in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's own journal? That's like saying a list of unusual company names is unsourcable and POV even if there was an article in Forbes about that very subject. Thin Arthur 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate list with no criteria for inclusion. The source page seems to be a personal website that happens to be hosted on a university domain. 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, several people here have shown that the area of "unusual names" in chemistry has been a topic for newspaper articles, the IUPAC and in scientific articles. Therefore the topic is notable and deserves an article. All entries should indeed be referenced, but not being able to read the references because you do not have access to a particular website or journal is not a valid criterium. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic, trivial. --Peta 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This compilation is definitely not original and is sourced to multiple satisfactory sources.  Perhaps should move to Chemical compounds with unusual names or similar, and convert the list format to prose, with tables as necessary, because lists should exist for navigation purposes and navigation is not the purpose here. --SmokeyJoe 06:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourced and interesting. Gandalf61 14:44, 22 August 2007 (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.