Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination)
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
— User:DMacks, 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)