Talk:List of chemical compounds with unusual names/Archive 1

Archive 1

Buckyballs

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)

Remove?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names

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?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names_(2nd_nomination)

• 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)
  • This discussion should be closed: it survived Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names and that should be enough. Discussion closed V8rik 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.