Deletion of List of chemical compounds with unusual names (2nd nomination)

Comment: Unusual means "differing in some way from the norm" and chemical naming conventions are usually systematic. Nobody has yet pointed out exactly which part of  the article violates. The article editors do not introduce a new theory or method of solution, original ideas, define new terms, etc. It does not violate #DIR(1) either as it is not a loosely associated topic. Chemical names do not usually resemble something else
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: I'm sorry, but "it's interesting" or "it's unique" are not arguments for keeping grounded in policy or guideline. These are practically |"I like it" arguments, and were |debunked long ago
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:ATA)

Comment: In that case, would you care to name exactly which policy the article violates? The chemical substances named are known to exist and their inherent unusualness is backed up by at least one book, at least one peer-reviewed journal article and the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature. It is not OR and passed  and . Remaining issued can be dealt with edtiorally. This is not a reason to delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: provided it can be rewritten to meet Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. I dispute the claim of extreme OR as it does not violate  or . It does not introduce a new theory or method of solution, original ideas, define new terms, new definitions of pre-existing terms, etc and all the information is verifiable (all the molecules and their names can be confirmed to exist). The criterion of "unusual" is not OR/subjective if verifiable, reliable sources say the names are unusual. The Bristol University page is referenced.http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/sillymols.htm Exactly which part of  do you claim it violates? It can be made encyclopedic by improving the etymology
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: as potentially useful for students of organic chemistry and nanotechnology. This should be a chemical education article. Regarding  for usual/unusual, IUPAC must think that there are criteria since http://www.prometeus.nsc.ru/koptyug/library/journals/014-39.ssi Unusual names assigned to chemical substances appeared in their journal. I would like to see more intentionally funny names (e.g. Barrelene, Bastardane) rather than the unintentionally funny ones (e.g. titanic acid) since it takes some synthetic talent to make a molecule look like something intersting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: not patently OR, but it is the very definition of |trivial subject matter. No amount of cleanup would change the fact that it is a collection of bits of information disconnected from a larger, independent encyclopedic subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIV)

Comment: and send the nominator to the wikidungeon where he or she should have to copy out (by hand)  until he or she actually understands what it means. This is standard, source-based concatenation. Personally, I would like to rename it to List of unexpected terminology in chemistry or something to that effect, just so that we can include the HUHAHA method and spin tickling. Such list deletions deny Wikipedia a useful opportunity to keep track onarticles outside of the category structure, and obvious deny our users of a tool which might interest them. Some editors who comment do not seem to wish to write an encyclopedia which anyone would actually want to read
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)