Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allylcyclopentane
while I do not completely agree with the policy or the analysis, I am cool on this.  Arguments to change the policy or consensus: (1) Many ''tens of millions of compositions'' of matter are recognized (see Chemical Abstracts Service#databases), so there is a dilution factor - readers stumble on these ultra-obscure chemicals and conclude they are notable and then fabricate/build stories based on the elaborate jargon and fancy links (none to  you will notice). My guess is that some of the editors above are not practicing chemists and were swayed by the technojargon. (2) A related component, illustrated in the present article, is that these ultra-obscure articles are neglected by serious editors and they get fluffed up or filled with bad information, exacerbating the problem of a naive reader drawing the wrong conclusions. (3) The message factor - some editors will lower their standards for notability citing this kind of precedent.  Chemical compounds are dumb, but the hot issues within Wikipedia involve people-related issues, where the criteria for notability are elevated. Uneven standards are the basis for potential discord.  Thanks to all for taking the time to comment and advise. Cheers
— User:Smokefoot, 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SECONDARY (Wikipedia:No original research)