Deletion of List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination)

Comment: per , the fact "unusual" can actually be defined in a system with standard nomenclature, and arguments by DGG and Kkmurray
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: since it violates .  Whatever constitutes an "unusual" name is in the eye of the beholder, and any appearances on this list are inherently subjected to personal POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per the keep comments in previous AfDs...there are cited RS for the topic itself (supporting this topic as a grouping and that these entries belong to it, not just proving that specific entries themselves exist), so it's not listcruft or OR to have this article. Interesting to me with any simple List Of article is that (per WP:V) the list part really ''is'' likely to be an amalgamation of cited-refs' lists. Unfortunately, this article ''still'' needs work (also per previous AfDs) to clarify scope and/or rename, but as usual "needs improvement" is an editorial (!= deletion) issue. However, even those discussions had no consensus about what specifically would improve it ("better title to clarify topic/scope" but all ideas seem found to be less suitable, etc). I'm confused by the nom too...feels a lot like "let's nominate random individual articles and hope most get the same AfD result" (that's almost !) rather than actually having a centralized discussion. And given that this AfD is explicitly ''not'' to set precedent, why bother doing this one article? I'd rather see a real discussion on "the future of List Of articles" widely advertised than to sneak up on consensus with some lists without others knowing their fate seems to depend on that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: due to previous discussion that already closed as keep followed by a second discussion in which the community still had no consensus to delete. The article passes  by having a discriminate inclusion criteria, i.e. only verifiable items, only verifiable items that are chemical compounds, and only verifiable chemical compounds that have unusual names. Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: At first I was thinking it was |OR, but now I see that "unusual" actually means something objective in terms of chemical names, as Benjiboi illustrates above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS||WP:V)