Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:30, 27 January 2009

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (6th nomination)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lists of "unusual" things are having mixed fortunes in the article namespace currently. Some have been deleted, others have been nominated for deletion, but kept; reasons cited for deletion include that they are "unencyclopaedic", that "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder and thus contravenes our neutral point of view policy, that such lists are not verifiable, and that such a list amounts to original research. I have no opinion on this subject, other than our deletion decisions in this area should be consistent, and so I'm adopting a neutral stance. Note however that this deletion nomination seeks to establish community consensus for this article, not for others. There have been previous deletion discussions for this article, which have resulted in its retention. SP-KP (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Technical comment It looks like this is actually the fourth nomination. Aleta 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nice list, and makes you want to cite WP:IAR, but isn't it just copying the Bristol list (ref. 3)? Additionally the list includes many regular names like cinnamaldehyde. Put this list to some other Wiki that doesn't try to be an actual general encyclopedia. For example, the article Snipe hunt was also purged of a funny, but very long list of anecdotal examples that can virtually never be cited or made verifiable. --Vuo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the keep comments in previous AfDs...there are cited RS for the topic itself (supporting this topic as a grouping and that these entries belong to it, not just proving that specific entries themselves exist), so it's not listcruft or OR to have this article. Interesting to me with any simple List Of article is that (per WP:V) the list part really is likely to be an amalgamation of cited-refs' lists. Unfortunately, this article still needs work (also per previous AfDs) to clarify scope and/or rename, but as usual "needs improvement" is an editorial (!= deletion) issue. However, even those discussions had no consensus about what specifically would improve it ("better title to clarify topic/scope" but all ideas seem found to be less suitable, etc). I'm confused by the nom too...feels a lot like "let's nominate random individual articles and hope most get the same AfD result" (that's almost WP:POINT!) rather than actually having a centralized discussion. And given that this AfD is explicitly not to set precedent, why bother doing this one article? I'd rather see a real discussion on "the future of List Of articles" widely advertised than to sneak up on consensus with some lists without others knowing their fate seems to depend on that. DMacks (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since it violates WP:NPOV. Whatever constitutes an "unusual" name is in the eye of the beholder, and any appearances on this list are inherently subjected to personal POV. Themfromspace (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete 'Unusual' is inherently a subjective standard. Without a clear standard for inclusion, the list is just an Internet amusement. Not particularly encyclopedic in subject matter. A list of compounds that have non-standard names (names which violate ordinary chemical naming conventions) would be reasonable; this seems much more broad and vague. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment That isn't possible. In practice, practically all organic compounds are called by their non-IUPAC trivial names, unless the trivial name has been "blessed by the IUPAC", of course. --Vuo (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can agree on that, isn't it possible to rename the article and trim some entries? - Mgm| 10:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I'm afraid that using the word unusual is a neccesary evil because you can't call the article List of chemical compounds with names implying bodily functions, swear words and words normally having a different meaning. As long as the criteria for what exactly is considered unusual are mentioned in the lead section, it should be okay to have a less than perfect title. - Mgm| 10:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep invalid and confused reasons for nomination. This is one of a series of similar AfDs initiated by the nominator. If consistency is desired, then the proper place to determine consensus on "list of unusual ..." articles is by discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Lists or similar, not by initiating AfDs on individual lists - what useful conclusions can you draw from a bunch of scattered AfD discussions ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources included in the discussion at the top of the list indicate the notability of the general category; concerns with subjectivity of the criterion can be addressed by requiring a reliable source to have commented on the name's unusual nature. Given that many of the items are included because their names are amusing (also subjective, but verifiable in the same way) I would suggest renaming 'unusual' to 'unusual or amusing'. JulesH (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• keep For a number of reasons. 1. There have been three nominations already. Repeating the discussion is eating away editing time. The objections raised in the previous discussion (main concern was lack of citations) have been acknowledged and have been remedied. The article has not changed to a significant degree since the last discussion 2. This page is part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry and endorsed by the chemistry community. 3. Lists are useful tools in an ever more complex technological world. 4. The Editors who oppose the article or parts of the article have not investigated other less severe options than downright deletion V8rik (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep due to previous discussion that already closed as keep followed by a second discussion in which the community still had no consensus to delete. The article passes WP:LISTS by having a discriminate inclusion criteria, i.e. only verifiable items, only verifiable items that are chemical compounds, and only verifiable chemical compounds that have unusual names. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That is not a criterion for speedy keep. Please see WP:SK. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Regardless it should be speedily kept, because once we get on to third nominations of articles that have been kept, it becomes disruptive. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV. Who decides that the compound name is unusual? Stifle (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The cited published sources. Sincerley, --A Nobody 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep When a first discussion is keep, and a second no consensus, it's reasonable to try a third, to see if opinion is changing. Actually, though, I think it is changing in the direction of keeping list articles if there's any reasonable basis for them. In this case, there's no question of notability, since all the substances are notable. That the names are in fact considered by chemistry to be unusual is shown by the sources. The Nikon book and the Metanomski article given as general references explain the concept and validate the entries. Most org chem courses tend to spend sometime on this, presumably in the hope of enlivening the subject, which accounts for the large amount of available material. DGG (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a well-referenced educational article that humanizes chemistry and makes students think about common names and the utility of naming standards. Regarding POV, anyone familiar with chemistry nomenclature can gauge "unusual" with good accuracy. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the reasons given by both DGG and Kkmurray. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all the interesting and unusual names for things were one of what got me interested in chemistry as a child, this article could be entirely encyclopedic with a bit of cleaning up. Meodipt (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:LISTS and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:V, the fact "unusual" can actually be defined in a system with standard nomenclature, and arguments by DGG and Kkmurray. Orderinchaos 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is fine as popularization of chemistry.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Snow keep. IUPAC nomenclature is misunderstood by many outside the work and unusual, though seemingly subjective, may actually be the most encyclopedic term. The subject is notable and sourceable so the rest seems to be clean-up. Rather than any re-naming I suggest more simplified clarity of the lede to spell out that sometimes these are accidental and other times they are quite intentional. Also the list should likely spell out why reliable sources think these names are unusual as we write for a variety of readers who may not understand what is considered peculiar. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - At first I was thinking it was OR, but now I see that "unusual" actually means something objective in terms of chemical names, as Benjiboi illustrates above. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The word 'unusual' is only as confusing and ambiguous as the word 'celebrity'. — neuro 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates