Talk:List of chemical compounds with unusual names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-11-24. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] From VfD

  • The article does not make sense. -- Taku 04:08, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like vanity, though it is a good topic. Perhaps make it into a list page? -- Friedo 04:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory, Alexa rank is 10,000+. An article on the molecules is problematic as well, what with POV etc. Meelar 04:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vanity (promotion of a Web site). —Tkinias 04:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Guess if it were my site, it could be considered vanity. It's not though, and this article's not intended to promote this site - the info is all public domain and totally verifiable (do you have a copy of the CRC Handbook at your disposal? I do.) Of course, if readers want more info, the site address is there for them. This article is intended to give a bit of a laugh. Oops - sorry - forgot that's not allowed here... Denni
    • So you do realize this is a joke. True, sometimes patent nonsense is really funny. But there is no question whether to include such a joke in wikipedia. Speedy deletion is a function for this kind of articles. -- Taku 23:25, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Humor ≠ joke. Something can be amusing and perfectly legitimate at the same time, in exactly the same way in which a joke can be totally unfunny (George W. Bush, for instance). Help me understand, please, why the slightest hint of levity here brings the Humor Police and their Batons of Grimness. Denni 23:03, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
      • The article doesn't qualify as "patent nonsense". MK 23:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a link repository. Non-famous, article is orphan. -- Cyrius | Talk 05:13, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's amusing, but it could use a clean-up. MK 16:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a plug for a website. Possibly if the only mention of the website was an external link at the bottom of the page I might reconsider. Average Earthman 12:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fennec 14:24, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleaned up. Note, however, the legitimacy of these terms. They are well-sourced. Denni 22:57, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Keep.The website is reasonably well known. I had heard of it beforehand anyway. The molecules are all real.Now the page has been cleaned up I don't see why we shouldn't keep it. theresa knott 11:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mildly amusing, perhaps, but Wikipedia material? Not sure. --pne 16:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to IUPAC or other article on naming molecules. Regardless of whether this article's content is good or not, it should not be a separate entry. Jeeves 22:48, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, move content to BJAODN Warofdreams 18:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Love it. Real molecules, keep (rename if necessary). +sj+ 19:21, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is this any different than "List of unusual place names" or the weird word list? Wiwaxia 01:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's a real website. The content on buckyballs seemed accurate. Any chemists? Meelar 02:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a website listed. Do people not bother to check such things? Please check before arbitrary deletion!! Denni 02:11, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

That said, I feel this is worthy of deletion, just not speedy. Meelar 02:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And your reasoning is... Denni
Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the Alexa rank is 10,000+. But that's neither here nor there...this isn't vfd. Point is, you were right to take off the speedy delete tag. Meelar 02:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I will allow the first point for now, but Alexa be damned, for the same reason that I have consistently argued against Google as an arbitor of truth. A million Google hits do not ensure the reputability of a site any more than a million flies mean shit is good to eat. (Just as a ferinstance, do a search of astronomy and astrology, and count the hits for each. Whoopee - the New Age is REAL!!) Denni 02:25, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
Certainly. However, Alexa is different from Google. If we don't have an article on non-famous people, then why have articles on non-famous and non-influential websites? There are exceptions for sites that are more famous than their Alexa rank would indicate (see Badger Badger Badger) but I don't think this has attained that status. Meelar 02:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How the heck does this deserve a place in an encyclopedia? Its interesting but... Shakeer 03:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Remove?

Does this belong in a serious encyclopedia? Dpr 06:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Given that Wikipedia has about a gazillion articles on Pokemon characters, and even the most non-notable high school is deemed worthy of inclusion, I find it hard to determine what "serious" means in this context. Of course this article should have a spot here. It's real science, and just because it raises the corners of the mouth does not render it illegitimate. Denni☯ 00:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • I can't argue it's not funny, but there has to be a limit to "real" knowledge as opposed to just plain entertainment. The humor--which I don't attempt to deny--lies in such names as Dickite and Fukalite. Basing an article on those jokes doesn't seem to fit on the Wikipedia forum. Dpr 01:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I encourage you to spend a few days reading through the Votes for Deletion nominations to get a feel for what is considered legitimate for Wikipedia and what is not. While I concur that this article would not likely find a place in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Wikipedia is a much more inclusionist forum. Denni☯ 01:57, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
      • Also, this article was nominated for deletion once before, and survived (as you can see from the discussion above). That was about a year ago. However, there's a fairly strong feeling among many Wikipedians that an article that has survived VfD once should not be renominated unless "something has changed" in the meantime. For that reason, people who originally voted to delete an article will sometimes vote "keep" on a renomination, on the grounds that the previous consensus should be respected. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a reasonably nicely edited article, and the author seems quite earnest in his or her intention. --SaulPerdomo 19:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Dispite having contributed to this article, isn't a title with "unusual names" somewhat imply a POV?Olin 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think so. "Hilarious" or "funny" would be, but not "unusual". (Argh. Thanks for putting Tom Jones in my head...) Femto 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Stay. this list has a very long tradition in chemistry, in various forms it exists much longer than Wiki. It signifies a definite flaw in trivial naming in chemistry without a counterpart in for instance astronomy or biology. Other reasons: survived deletion effort before; wiki also contains 400 pages on the Simpsons and 10000 pages on train stations that better qualify for deletion. V8rik 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS did I mention barrelene?
  • Keep. This is an article about molecules, not about a website. The website just happens to be the primary reference for the article. The molecules are real and the list is of some interest, even if not "serious". Itub 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New topic here

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names_f32e.html"