Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commonly available chemicals


 * 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. No bias against a possible merge to a similar article, (specifically to Common chemicals), interested editors should discussion on the respective talkpages. Consider notifying a science/chemistry editor group? Keeper |  76  19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

List of commonly available chemicals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * The quality of the list is low; some items are obsolete (does anywhere still use town gas, and does that count as commonly-available?), others are available as mixtures/alloys, other are things that are available only with post-processing. Many of the items address the reader in an unencylopaedic manner ("you will need" "be sure to read the labelling")
 * The inclusion criteria are subjective, and tend towards what's available in the United States.
 * It's not possible to imagine this list being complete. It could easily include every type of plastic and many biological molecules, for instance, but is based on what the contributing authors imagine will be of use to an amateur chemist. This puts it firmly into How-to territory. Pseudomonas(talk) 14:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator explains the issues well. Wikipedia is not a virtual Chemistry set.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Impressive resource, and a lot of work invested, but not what an encyclopedia's about. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not useless, but could do with being rehomed elsewhere on the web. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Impressive resources, with a lot of work invested, should be handled outside of AfDs. WP is a varied project; no single person or group has a complete vision of what [this] encyclopedia's about.  A small group can decide on some deletion questions (whether something is a neologism, or has no useful sources, or is a hoax) - AfD works for that.  But a small group should not decide that a large chunk of work done by some other groups needs to be deleted because the two groups have different visions for what knowledge we are here to share.  –  SJ  +  02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A possible home for the content would be as an appendix for General_Chemistry.- gadfium 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We have the similar article Common chemicals, which has previously been transwikied to b:Transwiki:Common chemicals. If this does get moved to the General Chemistry wikibook, that should be tagged for a merger with it.- gadfium 07:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep somewhere. It is a useful resource for somebody who doesn't know much about chemistry and comes across chemicals in the community or workplace. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep. Nice try FBI or Homeland Security for trying to delete this article, ok maybe its not them, but I wouldn't put it past them or some other similar group behind the effort.  The only reason I noticed this request for deletion is that I put a WATCH on it because I thought it was a cool list and was curious what else might be added to the list.  I've seen far more worthless lists on Wikipedia, so my vote is to keep it or merge into another article(s).  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First time I've been accused of being FBI :) Seriously, it's useful, I don't want to see it disappear from the web, but it would be much better on wikibooks or somewhere. Not everything that's useful should be on Wikipedia, and this seems to be the same category of useful as, say, recipes. Pseudomonas(talk) 13:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I use this list as a convenient reference to articles about the substances that are used in household products and items. Other sites don't have the base of chemistry information as readily available to quickly access this information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.130.194 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I say above: just because it's useful doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopaedia rather than, say, Wikibooks. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge with Common chemicals (which is a much less useful and less detailed page on the same topic). To the nominator's arguments: the quality isn't that low - alloys or sources  that need minimal post-processing are still quite useful.  And inclusion criteria could be updated with flags or colors indicating the region of the world in which each source is easy to come by.  –  SJ  +  02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge as suggested. A perfectly appropriate list with a  reasonable inclusion criterion. It's not exact, but it's meaningful.  DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Common chemicals then rename to List of common chemicals. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, I realise I might be on the losing side here, but the main criteria ("commonly available") seems to be rather subjective. Some of these commonly available chemicals are illegal to possess in some places, for instance.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:17, 25 March 2013 (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.