Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (6th 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. Consensus is unanimously in favor of keeping the article. As a note: I've since gone back on this one myself, due to the fact that there are sources that can be used for the list. However, enough time has passed that I don't really think I can call this a withdrawal anymore. So, sorta withdrawn by nominator, but consensus is also very clearly in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Invalid OS (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2020 (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  Stats )

Seems to be a page that only exists for humor. Invalid OS (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Invalid OS (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination does not contain a valid reason to delete and fails to address the numerous previous discussions which have kept the page. See also WP:LULZ. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Nominator makes no policy- or guideline-based argument against this article. But instead (as many times before) this article has reliable sources supporting the topic as a topic and the various entries in it. DMacks (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. "Unusual names" is an extremely subjective criterion and the only source for "unusualness" seems to be a blog listing (that also flogs the author's book on the same subject), hence WP:LISTVERIFY is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As there are books on the subject, the topic is not original and we have verification. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Trinitrotuluene I'd compare this to Place names considered unusual: We can discuss the concept of names being unusual and give some examples, but we do not need to have a subjective list that attempts to give all of them (it's kept at Unusual place names as a subset of Unusual articles). There's this 1990s personal website and the Metanomsky and May books I can't access. At the very least, I fail to see what makes being named after a place unusual. Or Germanic acid? Carbonite? Fluoboric acid? HArF? These are lame. Reywas92Talk 23:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not !voting because I WP:LIKE this too much for an unbiased assessment. However, in case of Keep, some pruning would be advisable. The "Other" category is a bit on the nose with the arbitrary inclusion of lame items. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:LISTN, have been covered/discussed in sources ie. Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names held in around 950 libraries, of course, editors will need to keep an eye out for possible WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:OR additions ie. i have just removed the entry for "Bowlane" as it doesnt have a source to say that it is unusual. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A fair number of sources discuss unusual chemicals, including at least one full length book, and various journal articles. However, if kept, the inclusion criteria need to be tightened, and the lead cleaned up. The "Other" section should go entirely. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also note that is the sixth!! deletion discussion for this article. That means five previous discussion have agreed to keep the article. Not sure what has changed since the last discussion that would alter the outcome here. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the seventh (one was under a name that the auto-list doesn't recognize...I manually added it to the list), and only four of them (including the most recent three) were "keep" (two others were "no consensus", which has the same effect). But as to your fundamental "what has changed" concern, I think "nothing has changed". DMacks (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP as I said in the previous deletion nomination, sources have been found mentioning it such as The Royal Society of Chemistry and things published by Imperial College Press on the subject. If something has been nominated this many times, please read at least the past nomination before wasting everyone's time with it.   D r e a m Focus  04:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep without a nomination rationale WP:SKCRIT. This list meets WP:LISTN Wm335td (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW - we've been through this five times before, and I don't see consensus changing. In fact, there are more potential references available today than in the past. AfD is not the place to announce a clean-up. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. A perfectly legitimate list, especially in context of popular science. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, BUT only those entries that have their unusualness sourced. Most of the entries seem to be "sourced" by research papers. I strongly doubt they mention the oddness of the names, and they wouldn't be independent in any case. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2020 (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.