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, probably needs renaming and lot of work. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names[edit]

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

Bad tone, just doesn't seem suitable for Wikipedia. FlareNUKE 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a sometime-chemist, this is interesting and useful to me. Perhaps rename as List of chemical compounds with nonstandard names? Chubbles 07:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Unusual names" is simply a way too subjective standard for what should be included in a list. The article looks more like a list of trivia than anything else. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, presuming that the names (and their derivations) can all be sourced. The title should probably be changed per Chubbles1212 to something more along the lines of "nonstandard names", since "unusual" is a subjective term and the criteria for inclusion would support "nonstandard" as currently written. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sjakkalle who has hit the nail on the head. This stuff can be sourced but it is not a list of nonstandard names. That would mean all common, non-SI names. These are names that sound funny but only to culturally english speakers. Sorry. It has to go. --Bduke 08:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maximum delete List of chemical compounds with names that make anglophone adolescents snigger. Really scientific, very encyclopaedic, I don't think. --Folantin 09:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Folantin and evil, evil POV involved. Moreschi 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Killitoffalite --Doc^g 10:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, for a similar list and its deletion precedents, see Talk:Place names considered unusual. Every entry on that list is now sourced to some other source that considers it unusual. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Bduke. Most of the names seem to be included because they sound naughty to English-speaking schoolboys. JIP | Talk 10:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got an URL floating on my harddrive to a website with similar content. Perhaps a good idea as an external link in chemical compound? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - one of the external links provides a verifiable source for at least some of the compounds on the list. Could be better sourced, but it's not unverifiable. Arguments that the list if POV are poorly thought out, or in conflict with wikipedia's policy on sourcing. POV unusual is fine as long as it's not the wikipedian's point of view, but a verifiable POV (which in this case, it is). WilyD 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I was going to argue keep, but the above comments changed my mind. Although it looks like lots of people have invested a lot of time into making this list, it's nothing but a list of trivia that, as JIP put it, is only appreciated because most of the content sounds naughty to English-speaking schoolboys. Also, it looks like a vandalism magnet. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Even if every word was verifiable, it would still be incredibly unencyclopedic. -- Kicking222 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep: 1. The Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines allow it to have the citations on the specialist page not on the general page, for example for citations on barrelene see barrelene, its that simple. 2. Precedent: the Place names considered unusual survived two nominations 3. starting March 2004 already at least 50 people contributed in some way to this article, that should count for something. 4. this page is releavant to the trivial name page as it is a demonstration of the practical consequences of name-giving in chemistry 5. did anyone mention Fenestrane or sulflower already? V8rik 15:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that someone has taken it upon themselves (despite surviving the AfD) to remove the entire list at Place names considered unusual, and is likely to delete it again if restored. I'm not interested in starting an edit war, but I wanted to point this out, because that list, as well, is very interesting. Chubbles 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It doesn't matter whether the existence of these compounds can be verified individually, it's putting them together on this list that's the issue. As so many users have already stated, the big POV problem here is that these names are mostly "unusual" only from the perspective of an English-speaking schoolkid. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia with an international scope, not a place to laugh at funny foreigners and their silly languages. What next? Do we create a "List of Thai place names with obscene overtones in English" (Phuket, Bangkok)? How encyclopaedic would that be? There's a place on the Net for this stuff, but not here.--Folantin 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of obsolete technologies. As Sjakkalle says, the definition of unusual names is vague and subjective. Non standard names doesn't work either, how does one define "non-standard" in this context? Also, the list as defined is open ended as it inherently includes neologisms made for new chemical compounds. Tubezone 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indescriminate collection of pseudo-trivia (in that there is no subjective standard to determine what is "unusual". Even if this were an article about "non-standard" names, I fail to see the encyclopedic value in listing examples of things that don't follow a certain rule or norm. Agent 86 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it is likely that there are readers of the encyclopedia who are interested in the article. Alan Pascoe 19:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unusual is a subjective term. ReverendG 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per V8rik. -Toptomcat 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As far as I know or can verify, (about 90%) the names are authentic and verifiable. But it is still a non-encyclopedic article, in that the names are only catalogued here because of their perceived titillation value. Serious editors needing to access data on individual compounds will access the appropriate sites directly.--Anthony.bradbury 00:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - define 'unusual'? This is subjective ticklist crud. Pete Fenelon 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move to BJAODN, Wikipedia's repository of non-encyclopedic fun. Before voting to delete this, you should check out Wikipedia:Unusual articles to see what Wikipedia lovingly keeps. Fg2 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sjakalle, Agent86. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Maybe I'm missing something here, but this seems to be a perfect example of something that fails both WP:OR as well as WP:NPOV. The word 'unusual' in the article's title is necessarily POV, who is to say which chemical names are unusual? --The Way 07:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you peruse WP:NPOV and WP:OR you'll find that this article in fact complies with both. The verifiable, reliable sources are to say that the chemical names are unusual. Your argument applies equally to every statement in Wikipedia. Who's to say Canada is ten million square kilometers in area? Who defines it's borders? Who defines what a kilometer is? Who defines the meaning of the word area? There are already policies to explain how all of this is done. If you don't like the article, say so, but don't accuse it of violating policies it complies with perfectly. WilyD 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources can only show the name is used. How can you source its unusualness. Why is 'barrelene' unusual, but 'acetone' is not? It is entirely a judgement. The OR is making that judgment and is not done from a NPOV. --Bduke 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please go back and check the sources again [1] to find that in fact that (at least one) source shows that the molecule has an unusual name, explicitly labelled as such by the source. There's no OR problem and there's no NPOV problem. WilyD 14:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with caveats:
  • copyedit for tone
  • include more detailed etymology
  • possibly rename article or move to wikibooks

Unusual may be a subjective judgment but so are many other descriptors in other articles. That these compounds do exist should not be in doubt, especially if there are separate articles. That only anglophone schoolboys can appreciate the humor is silly. Any English speaking person can. It is possible to merge it into chemical terminology but from its length, it will eventually get split again. --Rifleman 82 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per v8rik. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Science. Interesting. Amusing. Encyclopedic. I don't know what I'd do without my morning dose of Fucitol. Herostratus 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep despite the bit of inherent subjectivity in determining what is "unusual". The article is sourced with references that refer to the chemical compounds as unusual. The article describes a more interesting side to the normally dry subject of chemical nomenclature. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There have been professional books on this subject, because--apart from all the adolescent puns, there are indeed chemical names that are unusual, and do have unexpected or deliberate connotations. Keep, and I promise to add a few dozen more real ones. I see no harm in mixing the two. There are professional jokes, and there are stupid jokes, and it can be hard to tell them apart. DGG 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unusual is a subjective term. utcursch | talk 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something less inherently POV, and keep anything that's sourced. --ais523 11:27, 29 November 2006 (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.