Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (4th 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No qualifier for "unusual", blatant and inherent OR as a result. Last AFD kept in part because nominator was actually neutral (wtf?). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the nth time this is brought up. Why don't you just forget about it. --vuo (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's not really gotten a proper discussion? The second AFD was three years ago and no consensus; the last one, from last year, was nominated by someone who was arguing neutrally, which is a really weird thing to do in AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LIST, WP:V, and WP:N. There are several reliable and independent sources listing these as chemical molecules with silly names. See "Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names," by Paul May, published by Imperial College Press, 2008, ISBN-13: 978-1848162075. See also "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. In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical.  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. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is  "The New Book of Lists: The Original Compendium of Curious Information"(2005) By David Wallechinsky, Amy Wallace, page 203. Any entries which are not citeable to a reliable source which says it is a silly or unusual name can be deleted by the normal editing process. Edison (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep not OR as there are a lot of sources on this subject.— Chris! c / t 01:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this list is well referenced and the refs that it uses (listed above) shows why the list itself is not OR as it has some broader interest from people. Also, two issues from the previous nom: it closed as keep not because of the neutral vote of the nominator, but because of the majority of keep votes; the other point I found worthwhile is that substances like "Penguinone" are not notable enough to warrant their own article, but a redirect could be provided for them to this list. Therefore there is a catalogue of such substances (that people check) here instead of in separate stub-articles. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep although more sources would be appreciated. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. It is well referenced. It is clear that the fact, that chemical nomenclature can lead to some humorous and startling, is clearly recognised in many sources. It is an article that I am sure many readers have found interesting. There is no reason to delete this. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the list of offline references appears to conclusively demonstrate that multiple reliable sources have covered "unusual chemical names" as a topic in its own right. Even using the most restrictive proposed criteria for standalone list notability, which I do not endorse, this topic would meet notability standards.  You really need to impeach the offline sources (which I haven't read, I'm just going by what's currently in the article) in order to bring this up in a non-disruptive manner. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia and there is no way to define objectively what "unusual" means for deciding whether a compound should be included or not. "Adamantane"? What's "unusual" about it? What's so unusual about "Barrelene" or "Borneol" or "Cubane" or "Titanic acid"? This is really "List of compounds with names that bear some resemblance through spelling or pronunciation to a sexual or excretory function" which, while having snigger value, is not the basis of a Wikipedia article. Any supposed usefulness of this list as an index of redirects is undone by the existence of List of inorganic compounds, List of organic compounds and List of biomolecules. "It's interesting" is not a reasonable basis for keeping and neither is "people enjoy reading it". A Radish for Boris (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User:A Radish for Boris has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment All you have asserted is WP:IDONTLIKEIT while ignoring Keep arguments grounded in policies and guidelines. That is totally irrelevant. Please argue by citing policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well actually, to the non-dicks among us WP:TRIVIA is a guideline and an article that is nothing but an extended trivia section falls under that guideline. That some random reporter decided that one or another molecule has a "silly" name hardly meets the minimum standards for inclusion. I could just as easily dismiss your comments by citing WP:ILIKEIT but I try not to be a douchebag. The point still stands that this is an entirely arbitrary list with nothing that begins to approach a reasonable inclusion standard beyond "Someone whose primary language is English might giggle because the name of this molecule sounds like shitting or fucking". A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would endorse removal of any entries which cannot be sourced in a book or other reliable source which explicitly calls attention to it as a compound with a silly name. A great many lists have such criteria for membership, such as "major battles" of some war. It should not be just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. If the book lists it, and the book is from a respected publisher, then that is a reasonable criterion. That is not at all "arbitrary." Edison (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, and trout slap the nominator for wasting other's time by frivolously renominating which has been repeatedly kept by increasing margins with no new argument beyond a gratuitous swipe at another editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Metanomski and May are clearly enough to establish notability of the subject. With that in mind and considering that the article is otherwise fairly well sourced and by no means beyond repair (regular editing), I fail to see how you would otherwise approach this subject. A list seems like the obvious format to me. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Oddly enough, this is a subject that people write about. The lede is rather too chatty for my taste, but the list is sourced, and may tempt the curious to read up about some of the items on it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Edison and Elen of the Roads (inter alia). Peridon (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and a sloppy wet trout for the nom. The inclusion criteria for this "List of X" are "what WP:RS says is considered X", and several are cited--that satisfies even the most deletion-minded reading of a stand-alone list article requirement. Those same sources that define terms and identify members were what led to the keep last time. The nom doesn't actually matter once the debate gets rolling (closure/consensus is of !votes based on their stated merits to keep/delete, not strict up/down agreement with stated nom). DMacks (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if the nominator at the 3rd deletion debate didn't offer an opinion, it is blatantly obvious from the long list of "keep" opinions that there was a clear community consensus to keep the article.  Add to that the opinions at the other AFDs that were closed as keep and it becomes puzzling how this ended up here again. The cited reliable sources establish notability and negate any concerns about OR.  ChemNerd (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep eminently notable topic oft-discussed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 13 October 2010 (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.