Deletion of List of chemical compounds with unusual names (4th nomination)

Comment: 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)

Comment: and a sloppy wet trout for the nom. The inclusion criteria for this "List of X" are "what  says is considered X", and several are cited--that satisfies even the most deletion-minded reading of a stand-alone list article requirement. Those same sources that define terms and identify members were what led to the keep last time. The nom doesn't actually matter once the debate gets rolling (closure/consensus is of !votes based on their stated merits to keep/delete, not strict up/down agreement with stated nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: All you have asserted is  while ignoring Keep arguments grounded in policies and guidelines.  That is totally irrelevant. Please argue by citing policies and guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)