Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (5th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 hasn't changed from prior discussions. Editorial questions related to objective criteria for inclusion in the list can be addressed on the article talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of chemical compounds with unusual names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article at present violates WP:NOT, in that it's a loose coalition of compounds unusual for different reasons. As such, they should be split into different lists, like List of chemical compounds named for shapes, List of chemical compounds named for brand names, etc. Note that last AfD was in 2010 and I didn't participate in it. Furthermore, though the article is "sourced", only four of the references are in the lede, and none of them provide an objective criteria (which is needed for a list to be kept) of what constitutes "unusual". Also, remember WP:TRIVIA and the policy/guidelines about "in jokes". pbp 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator suggests that the content in this article should be split into new lists, but if it's deleted, then this proposed split won't be very easily performed. Split discussions can occur on talk pages, rather than at AfD. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists would at least have objective criteria. However they would still be lists of trivia. BayShrimp (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of films considered the best. Yes other stuff does exist, but the film list has been snow kept several times.Martin451 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Best films" is quite a bit more notable than "chemical compounds named for shapes." BayShrimp (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No objective standard for inclusion in the list. Nor can there be since an "unusual name" is a matter of each person's opinion, not of fact. On one hand every compound's name is distinct so that "water", "alcohol", "rust", etc. are all unusual. What the fans of this article seem to think are unusual names are mainly those that suggest some "naughty word" in English. An encyclopedia is for facts, not for someone's opinion of what is "unusual." BayShrimp (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as usual). As usual, there are objective standards and cited ref(s) for claims of "unusual"...as usual, approximately "if a reliable source says so". Whether the article needs some pruning (other editors adding whatever they think is unusual) vs sticking to WP:V material is (as usual for this article) an editorial issue for this article. There is an explicit and verifiable scope and inclusion criteria. The article is not so long that it needs to be split. And there's no obvious objective criteria for deciding how to split either. But split != delete. But no prejudice against creating separate "list of chemicals named for..." if someone feels like it (and there are many that do fall into those categories that are not "unusual"). Why are we here and again? DMacks (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, articles may be AfDed again after a number of months/years have passed. And "if somebody says so" is subjective, not objective. Objective would be "It did this", "It is in this place", "It is named after this", etc. pbp 02:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, articles can be nominated for deletion again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again until those you are arguing with loose the will to argue. "if somebody says so" is what wikipedia is about. We document what other people say and think and publish. When many people say Cummingtonite is a funny name, we report that. If there is a common element (pun intended) we group them together. We do noy whole heartedly delete/rename articles because they contain words like "unusual" or Arsole.Martin451 03:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's OK for content in an article to be based on "somebody says so", but he criteria for lists requires a little more than that, such as "people who did X", "places that are Y", etc. But keep in mind that the use of the word "unusual" to describe a BLP, it'd be gone in about five seconds. And since Arsole has its own article, we're not losing content by deleting this list. We're just losing an article that consists in an all-too-large part of flatuence jokes pbp 04:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One isn't allowed to change one's name to Arsole Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC), is one? (is it Latin?)[reply]
  • Comment selection criteria are discussed in the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists and are not relevant to a deletion discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clickbait list-of-50-unusual-things looks like it should belong on the Huffington post rather than Wikipedia. Or, if this is kept, at least severely trim it to compounds for which the unusualness of their name has been documented — which seems not to be the case for the current list. Rather, the list looks like some editor's opinion of what's unusual, documented by sources that in most cases only verify the name itself, not its unusualness. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Diff for all changes from last time there was consensus-keep until now. DMacks (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chemical names such as Pu are unusual and do not fall into other categories. We could have list of chemicals named after geometric shapes, list of chemicals named after brands, but where would we dump the Pu and Arsole jokes, or those that just accidentally take the piss. Lists of unusual things are notable, even if the name is an accidental emmision[1]. Martin451 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Seaborg story can be told at Plutonium. We don't need, in any list, stuff that was named as a fart joke. That is pretty clearly WP:NOT pbp 02:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty unclearly, instead, since I see no WP:NOT section saying "thou shall no mention stuff that was named as a fart joke". Given how shaky is your understanding of WP:NOT, judging from the other related AfD, my advice is to stop handwaving it as if it was a free WP:IDONTLIKEIT jolly. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "your understanding of WP:NOT is shaky", what you really mean is "I don't agree with what you're saying, so I'll claim you don't understand policy". As such, your claim that my understand of WP:NOT being shaky is inaccurate pbp 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you attempt to read my mind, you fail miserably. It's not that I disagree with you. I do, surely, but that's another thing -after all there is a lot of people who disagrees with me and that nonetheless has a more than decent understanding of policy. It's that you, instead, cite policy without understanding it, as proven repeatedly by your comments: e.g. claiming that the policy mysteriously forbids topics related to fart jokes, or by claiming elsewhere that an analogous topic on which entire books and articles are regularly written is a "non encyclopedic cross categorization". As such, my claim that your understanding of WP:NOT is shaky is sadly accurate. Of course policies can have different interpretations and grey areas, but you seem to consistently miss the point of them. You're free to believe otherwise. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per BayShrimp. 'Unusual' is in the eye of the beholder, and these represent nothing but the personal perspective or quirky sense of humor of the individual making the list. There is nothing 'usual' about deoxyribonucleic acid, tungsten or MAP kinase kinase kinase either. While at least some of the entries are referenced, a quick survey shows the references to refer to the origin of the name, or the derivation of the chemical compound, and not that the name is unusual. This list is just as arbitrary as 'list of things I think are interesting' or 'list of funny jokes'. While this may eliminate a venue for juvenile bathroom humor puns, I suspect the Wikipedia project will not be much the worse for the omission. Agricolae (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just the personal sense of humour of the individual making the list, as Agricolae says. In no case is the supposed unusualness of the name backed up by a source. Fails WP:LISTN. -- 101.119.14.248 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The analogous list at Place names considered unusual was moved to Wikipedia:Unusual place names back in 2006, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps this article should be handled similarly. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Pitch till you win" is an amusing carnival game, but an inappropriate and disruptive tactic to use in AFD. So here is what I said at the fourth AFD in 2010: "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 [2] "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 [3] in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is [4] "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) 04:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
. . . and in 2010 someone published a book, Things that Suck. Then there is 1001 Ridiculous Sexual Misadventures. And let's not forget, Stuck Up!: 100 Objects Inserted and Ingested in Places They Shouldn't Be. Just think of all of the wonderful lists we could make. Agricolae (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources may be independent of the subject, but they're mostly not independent of each other. The Book of Lists and the Royal Society newsletter are simply borrowing from May's list while Randall's article is about it. "Chemical Cock-ups" seems independent, but h2g2 is a tertiary source. In the Bibliography, there are works by Alyea and Metanomski that may be independent, but I can't access them. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. Sources on the topic abound, the topic is notable, and entries can be easily sourced, so that no OR is required. It is also completely unclear what advantage to readers or the encyclopedia would be gained by deletion of this article.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the objective criteria? pbp 13:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are the objective criteria. In any case an AfD is about the topic, not the inclusion criteria. If you have issues with inclusion criteria (I agree the list needs serious trimming), that should be done on the list talk page.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say that the sources are objective if they're just some guy pulling a list out of thin air. Period. Sources like that are not objective pbp 16:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If WP only dealt with purely objective sources we would only have articles about mathematical theorems. Sorry, but nothing requires sources to be "objective", as far as I know (no, not even NPOV: what has to be neutral is the article, not the source). The point is that sources exist that deal with the topic, list the compounds and characterize them as such. That's what we need. That they pull it out of thin air or out of a secret but unquestionable Unusual-O-Matic algorithm is none of our business, at this level. In other words: I understand you don't like the sources, but that is not an argument. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying my own point: What we need is an objective criteria for us to decide what to include. The objective criteria is: "it is listed in sources about the topic". That's perfectly objective for us: either it is sourced, or it isn't. That in turn the source uses objective criteria or not, is an entirely different problem and a much less relevant one. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, whether or not the source uses objective criteria (and I might add, none of them do) is pretty darn relevant. pbp 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right sorry, that is the WP:PURPLEBACKPACK89SAIDSO policy, you are right, I'm going to change my !vot... wait, how is that it is a red link? --cyclopiaspeak! 16:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And where's the objective criteria? pbp 13:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Edison and DMacksabove. This is not an indiscriminate list in the sense the WP:NOT disfavors or prohibits. However, all entries should be sourced to a WP:RS that specifically says that the name is unusual. DES (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the book by May, this list does not satisfy WP:LISTN. Why? Because it is supposed to be a reliable source for notability of the list. I would not argue against citing May on the statement that adamantane is an isomer of twistane, but is he a reliable source for the statement that adamantine is an unusual name? How would you even define "unusual" for a chemical name? I think the more fundamental policy consideration is that the items in this list are loosely associated, being linked only by the vague term "unusual", so a reliable source may not even be possible. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. The May book is, for example, a book by a chemist (if I understand correctly) on the whole subject of chemical compounds with unusual names. That is, pretty clearly, a reliable source on chemical compounds with unusual names. What kind of source would you ask instead? --cyclopiaspeak! 17:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that to satisfy WP:LISTN he needs to be a reliable source for the unusualness of the names. And how can he be that if he hasn't even defined "unusual"? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be explicitly defined? All we need is sources doing the judgement. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a very good list unless ALL the sources are using the SAME definition. Take the List of no-hit games article. Every source agrees on what a no-hit game is, and that a no-hit game is a notable topic. Neither of those things are true for this topic, and they have to be pbp 18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN does not at all require some precise and objective criterion for membership in a list, with some rigorously stated definition, and lists have always been sourceable to published opinions as to membership. We look for reliable sources saying something belongs to a list, and thus have more lists than if they were all based on simple "yes/no" membership criteria. The present guideline just requires that the class of entities in the list are collectively notable, not that membership can be determined with laboratory instruments. (Persons involved in this AFD are presently trying, at Village Pump, without much success, to change the guideline for lists so that lists could not be based on subjective critera such as "unusual" or "worst." It's an interesting tactic, to try to change the guidelines while an AFD is ongoing.) Edison (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Edison:, maybe the definition doesn't need to be precise, but have you thought about the many ways that a name could be "unusual"? It could be the longest name, or the one with the highest proportion of consonants, or an anagram, or the one most frequently misspelled, or the one that is used the most often ... Really, this list could be more accurately named List of names of chemical compounds that an English speaker might find funny. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For more on the difficulty of defining a word like "unusual", see What's Special About This Number? and the Interesting number paradox. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its understood that for an encyclopedia in any given language, "unusual names" are ones that are unusual in that language. But you raise an interesting point: Are there comparable lists of "unusually" named things in Wikipedias of other languages? Even in English, "Arsole" is probably not as funny in the US as in the UK, since it sounds nothing like "asshole," the US term. Edison (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention that - I was thinking of that very example. Also, some require a particular cultural background - for example, you need to know about Adam Ant to get the joke about Adamantine. And some seem like cheats to me; for example, ha ha, Cadaverine - but wait, it actually is a chemical produced by decay of a dead animal. So what's the joke exactly? There are lots of trivial names that include words with other connotations, for example caustic potash or slaked lime, but didn't happen to appeal to May's sense of humor. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is very interesting and I even agree, but it is also irrelevant -all what is relevant is what sources say. If you disagree with them, write your own source on the topic. --cyclopiaspeak! 21:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclopia: remember that there are other reasons for deletion besides lack of notability. My main point is that the topic violates WP:NOT because it is a loose collection of information, being based on a very elastic term - "unusual". Much of the above discussion just illustrates how difficult it is to pin down the term, and how May's publication fails to solve that problem. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about notability. The problem, RockMagnetist is only of you disagreeing with the assessment of the sources about what is unusual and what not. I may disagree as well, but that is not our job here to simply throw them away because you don't like what they consider unusual.--cyclopiaspeak! 22:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is our job to decide whether sources are reliable. May started a web site for fun, collected suggestions from others, and eventually wrote it up as a book, and that's the only independent "reliable source" for this list (all the others are derived from it, as I discuss above). I accept that May, being a chemist, knows whether a name refers to a chemical compound, but as to whether the name is silly or unusual, his judgement on the matter has no more value than yours or mine. So, for the purposes of this list, his book is not a reliable source. And it is all the less reliable because he has not even discussed what he means by "unusual". RockMagnetist (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliably sourced list that is likely to be of interest to readers. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep See previous nominations, no new developments V8rik (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This looks like it is heading to at least no-consensus-to-delete, if not an outright 'keep'. Repeated (5th nomination!?) nomination seems counter-productive and foolish. On the other hand, the current inclusion criteria ("a sample of trivial names") is vague and not at all discriminating. That needs to be cleaned up, or it will just invite a sixth (ugh!) nomination. The second inclusion criteria, "some examples of systematic names and acronyms that accidentally resemble English words," is much better, but could still be made more precise. I humbly suggest that some of the editors spending time crafting arguments to delete or keep the article could be better employed improving the criteria for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A name change was also recommended in closing the first two debates. A more accurate name might make it easier to specify the inclusion criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Edison and BD2412 have summed it up fairly well. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, categorise - Practically all named chemical compounds have 'unusual' names. There is no real barrier for inclusion - I would suggest a category "Named chemical compounds", with sub-cats "Chemical compounds named after people", "Chemical compounds named after places", "Chemical compunds with shape descriptive names", acrnyms, greek references etc and misc. Would be a shame not to be able to look this up, but needs to meet the Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE aspect of WP:NOT - I would volunteer to categorise. (let me know)Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Edison has found sources that mention it, such as The Royal Society of Chemistry and things published by Imperial College Press on the subject. The same arguments about what the word "unusual" defines is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination). Having the word "unusual" in the title seems to upset some people. Dream Focus 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN and so our editing policy applies. People were writing about whimsical chemical names long before May started compiling them too. As Nickon and Silversmith wrote, "actually, chemists do have a good sense of humor..." Warden (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People keep claiming that this article has "sources" (plural), when I have provided evidence that there may be only one source and a lot of others that either copy it or discuss it. Since no one seems to have read my comment, I'll reproduce it here:

The Book of Lists and the Royal Society newsletter are simply borrowing from May's list while Randall's article is about it. "Chemical Cock-ups" seems independent, but h2g2 is a tertiary source. In the Bibliography, there are works by Alyea and Metanomski that may be independent, but I can't access them.

Instead of uncritically repeating the WP:LISTN mantra, perhaps someone could try to refute this? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard you the first time and have refuted your claim already. Warden (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what part of your statement is a refutation. Is it this? "People were writing about whimsical chemical names long before May started compiling them too." RockMagnetist (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. The following sentence develops the point which is that Nickon and Silversmith's Organic Chemistry: The Name Game was published in 1987, was the result of ten year's work. and so long pre-dates May. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, @Colonel Warden:, that is one of the sources I don't have access to. In Google's snippet view of the book, I can't even find the word "whimsical". So it would really help if you could tell us - does the book provide any more detail on which words are whimsical or otherwise unusual, or why? Can it be cited for inclusion of some of the words in this list? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can pick up a second-hand copy quite cheaply. For now, here's a review which makes it fairly clear that it covers this ground. Warden (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colonel Warden:, the review does whet my appetite for more. Nickon and Silversmith's book seems like far richer fare than May's, which is heavily weighted towards the sort of stuff that would make a middle school student snigger. I do wonder why the supporters of this list aren't making any use of it. Why has no one cited it? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That work was added as a general reference to the article in 2007, six years ago. At that time, most entries did not have in-line citations - I suppose that blue links were considered adequate. And, of course, the process of adding in-line citations is quite laborious and few editors seem to have the skills, resources, time, energy and motivation required. To demonstrate the level at which most editors operate, consider a list created by the nominator: List of Crayola colored pencil colors. Presumably the nominator finds it easier and more entertaining to attack the work of others rather than improve his own. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and you get what you pay for. Warden (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I see in the history. This diff shows the article creation and Red Slash doesn't seem to have edited the article. Warden (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colonel Warden:, the particular article has nothing at all to do with this particular AfD. The purpose of AfD is to discuss the merits of this one article, not to bemoan me. I ask you once more to stop hijacking this thread to attack me. pbp 19:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:OSE, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Warden (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colonel Warden:, OSE also says, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". Furthermore, WP:ATA says that OSE arguments should be avoided in deletion discussions. You are now being disruptive in your desire to embarrass or sanction me as a result of a perfectly legitimate (per Wikipedia:Consensus can change) deletion request. The "you're being disruptive by dragging me through the mud"...that comes from the notice at the top of every AfD editing screen. pbp 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATA says, "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." One point of citing the pencil list is to show that you seem to require a higher standard for this page than you do for your own work. See WP:SAUCE. 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Your "cogent argument" boils down to "keep because Purplebackpack89 is inconsistent." Do you really think a closing admin will give such an argument any weight? You're making a personal attack and trying to justify it with policy. Please stop. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the point here seems to have been lost, I shall recap. RockMagnetist asked why no-one had cited a particular source. My explanation was that many or most lists have few citations because such work is hard. Myself, I always like to back up my points with evidence so so I pointed to List of Crayola colored pencil colors as an example. That list has sources like "My own 8 pack of Crayola Colored Pencils" and so is tagged for clean-up. It seems quite ridiculous that we should be arguing about a comparatively good list which has been brought to AFD before and repeatedly retained with a result of Keep when there's junk like that out there. As this process seems quite inefficient and disruptive, I expect this discussion to be closed in a similar way to another recent case - with a finding that we should have no more such nominations per WP:DELAFD. Warden (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that anyone cares at this point (I wish I hadn't been tagged--seriously, I don't have anything to add to the actual discussion) but I definitely remember creating that list, probably by splitting it from the main article. That was several years ago. I'd assume someone did a copy-paste move of it at some point, or it was deleted and then recreated. Anyway, I definitely did create that article at some point. I don't remember how exactly it happened though. Red Slash 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Early in this discussion, DMacks asked "Why are we here again?". Then he/she provided the answer in this diff and didn't even realize it. The list has not changed in any fundamental way - no one learned anything from the discussions. If the defenders of this article don't want to keep repeating these sterile arguments, they should be asking themselves, "How can we keep this from happening again?" I have tons of ideas, but I'm ready for sleep. Let's see if anyone else can come up with some ideas before I offer my suggestions. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Why not start discussions on the talk page for whatever problems you think the article has, and work it out through normal editing practices? AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 08:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy WP:DELAFD recommends blocking disruptive editors who "...repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." This might seem harsh but notice that the previous nomination was by TenPoundHammer who has a long record of making vexatious repeat nominations and is still doing so. The nominator in this case seems similar. They have only just finished serving a one week block and yet here they are, stirring up trouble again. Wikipedia is often compared to a MMORPG and such pastimes are commonly plagued by griefers. We should perhaps be more severe in restricting access by those who are not here to compile the world's knowledge. Warden (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colonel Warden:: WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you look at my edits between that (IMO wrong, and clearly nothing to do with my participation in AfDs) block and the (IMO correct) nomination of this article for deletion, you'll see a number of edits that added new content or replaced bad content with good. Saying I'm not here to "compile the world's knowledge" is inaccurate, and since NOTHERE is about improving the encyclopedia rather than just adding content, it's even more inaccurate. What is particularly disheartening to me is the continual calls for blocking me or forbidding me from AfD participation. You and Dream and Cyclopia have tried to do this to me at least once, and to TPH many times, and usually have been met with disapproval and/or trouts. What needs to stop is you continually clamoring for people like me and TPH to be sanctioned. As for nomination of this article for deletion, it was last nominated in 2010, and per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, it's OK to revisit a discussion that's three years in the rearview mirror (and FWIW, we've gone from 1 delete vote to many, so there has been a shift). I really wish you three would focus on actual arguments rather than "it was renominated too soon" and "I don't like TPH and PBP" pbp 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Purplebackpack89:, I honestly don't remember having called for you to be blocked or sanctioned, nor I remember having asked that about TenPoundHammer. Care to elaborate? It is well possible my memory fails, but I'm perplexed. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see here. CallawayRox started it, you supported it. pbp 19:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, Purplebackpack89, a topic ban from the topic of ARS? Hardly a huge sanction, and absolutely not forbidding you to participate to AfDs. Point taken however, I didn't remember that. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged the first compound in the list, Adamantane, as requiring a citation for the implied claim that it is unusual. Who is claiming it is? Looks Ok to me. However, I would not !vote delete for this list, it just needs proper sourcing. Several entries simply have no citations. Maybe, remove all the unsourced compounds, and only allow re-admission with sources? See what was done for List of films in the public domain in the United States, a potentially subjective list initially mostly unsourced, now has every single entry sourced (I hope). Also, for what it is worth, I do not consider the nomination disruptive, the list always struck me as borderline encyclopedic but with possibilities for cleanup. -84user (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While, List of films in the public domain in the United States may be many things (and that list may be cluttered and full of extraneous junk and in need of a good clean up), the one thing it isnt is "potentially subjective" - a film is either in the public domain or it is not. "unusual", however, will always be subjective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rock, I don't think you can definitely say, "Let's never revisit this again". Per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, nothing is final. We may revisit this again in 3-10 years, under a different nominator than me. The problem is that it's based on either the subjective judgment of a Wikipedian, or the subjective judgment of some author. If you found an objective method, or you split this into articles based on nomenclature (my original suggestion). pbp 23:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Purplebackpack89: You have completely missed my point. I am saying that, if the defenders of this list don't want to keep having this argument, they should take the criticisms seriously and either improve the list or merge it with Trivial name. And I have links to specific suggestions for both courses. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Trivial name. I have started a merger proposal here. I know it's a bit messy to have an AfD and merger proposal at the same time, but I want to present some serious alternatives that might break this AfD cycle while people are paying attention. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UNDUE requires us to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". May is a published authority on the topic and his work is influential, being re-published by the Royal Society, for example. This is exactly the sort of material we should base our work upon. Your personal distaste is irrelevant per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Warden (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If May is indeed the expert on unusually named compounds, then giving other voices the same validity as May would indeed be WP:UNDUE and would lead to List of chemical compounds that May thought had unusual names which is clearly not an encyclopedic topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per 84user. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edison and DMacksabove and others. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1136727419"