Deletion of List of chemical compounds with unusual names (5th nomination)

Comment: 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 . -- Special:Contributions/101.119.14.248|101.119.14.248
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LSC||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: 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  - I would volunteer to categorise. (let me know
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: The topic easily passes  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: List of chemical compounds that May thought had unusual names is not an encyclopedic topic. Criteria used by May and any other reliable source will be different. No actually objective criteria have been put forth that would allow readers and editors to know what should be included or excluded. Giving special credence to any published author who happens to use the word " unusual" is to give them  weight. We are not a collection of indiscriminate trivia. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:IINFO)

Comment: 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 , , and . 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10176987 "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 http://www.rsc.org/images/Newsletter_Autumn2005_tcm18-47107.pdf in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is http://books.google.com/books?id=tdY_N5gpOy4C&pg=PA203&dq=%22molecule+silly+name%22&hl=en&ei=WAuxTMiJNsuRnweZiM33CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false "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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:V||WP:N)