Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1,2-Dimethyl-chickenwire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT TO Chicken wire (chemistry). Although there were many votes to delete, they were for a form of the article very different from what currently exists, so I am using my discretion here. Stormie 09:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
1,2-Dimethyl-chickenwire[edit]
seems like a hoax: 1. no google match for the specified compound, 2. link includes a joke page with mercedes benzene, 3. linked professor doesn't have a paper on this compound--Confuzion 19:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. -- Curps 20:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, definite hoax. Note that Dr. Kim is an editor at the Annals of Improbable Research. This looks like a candidate for BJAODN. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Just a figment of Dr. Kim's imagination. Raven42 20:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an amusing page, but it will have to go! The compound is a perfectly valid compound, but I'm pretty sure no one has made it as yet. Walkerma 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's a joke. I've made this joke. (Well, mine was trimethyl-chickenwire, but let's not quibble.) It's an old joke, too. I made this joke when I last went by this pseudonym, some ... er ... several years ago, and even that wasn't the first time. Nor am I the origin of the joke. Much as I enjoyed this particular instantiation (including the molecular mass!) I regretfully say Delete. This is not quite thiotimoline. Uncle G 20:35, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- Delete. When I first heard this joke, Kennedy was president. (Of course, I heard it as "dibromo-trichloro-chickenwire." Along with benzene rings with "MD" radicals attached to it for "ortho-docs," "para-docs," and "meta-physics." And periodic acid, don't forget periodic acid (sinusoidally oscillating pH). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I like it, though. I looked for a while on the web for sites that one could upload a chemistry joke without a) it getting mixed in with other jokes and b) where you don't have to pass it through someone's email account .. in other words you can add it without adulteration. The only one I've found so far is at http://library.thinkquest.org/10429/gather/jokes.htm . Unfortunately, no images allowed here. Perhaps you can convince Dr. Helmenstine to add the joke to her Molecules with Strange Names page on About.com. Courtland 2005-01-31
- Keep, 1. Google is not the appropriate place to search for this compound, but gave at least three hits for me (e.g. for 2,3-dimethyl-chickenwire, but this is probably just an alternative numbering scheme). 2. There seem to be indeed some "obscure" molecules in that article, but 1,2-dimethyl-chickenwire is obviously one of the real ones. 3. Professor Nick D. Kim, does have a publication on it, it's linked to in the external link section. It was published under his pseudonym ("Nick"). 4. All chemical data given for this particular compound is correct, I have double-checked it. Cacycle 23:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - it's a joke. Look at the first external link!! Rd232 23:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly worth an entry qua joke? But there'd be a problem of settling on a name given the existing and possible variations. Rd232 23:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, obviously a joke. A funny one, no doubt, but still a joke.
- Voted by User:Jm9584 . Mikkalai 07:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy, obvious joke. Bart133 03:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep somehow Yes it is a joke but maybe a significant historial joke. I heard Prof. Woodward, the organic chemist, make it 40 years ago. He was refering, ironically, to a chemical synthesis involving a multiplicity of aromatic rings. In a way it perfectly describes a whole category of multicyclic molecules and as such is a valid simile. Besides being very memorable. ping 08:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and document as an old and very notable joke. GRider\talk 18:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Could be mentioned in chicken wire or whatever the real name is for that chemical notation. Kappa 20:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Add to WP:BJAODNAdd to Chicken wire (chemistry) --CarnildoBJAODNKeep. Megan1967 23:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)- But it is a Good Joke and therefore not appropriate for BJAODN. ping 06:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- keep. A known joke. Not exactly original research. Jokes are encyclopedic. Mikkalai 07:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I will make it a redirect to an article called Chicken_wire_(chemistry) that will be about the joke and the common use of the term chicken wire in chemistry ("Chicken-wire chemistry" gives 4,580 Google hits). Please give me some time for that. Also, if you find old references to this joke or have personal stories to tell, please add them to the current 1,2-Dimethyl-chickenwire page. Cacycle 12:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- keep Yuckfoo 05:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Move to Chicken wire (chemistry) and cleanup. —Korath (Talk) 06:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete It's a joke. Possibly trans-wikify into the nearest wiki-blackhole.
- Voted by User:Weaponofmassinstruction. Mikkalai 07:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete to BJAODN... maybe Best of BJAODN? This one was great! --Idont Havaname 01:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or move to Chicken wire (chemistry), but be much clearer about what is real and what is a joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Joke.
Comments[edit]
- It turns out that this kind of compound made it in a chemistry textbook, p.28 (ethylmethyl chicken wire; together with Mercedes Benzene). Hence the votes based on "nonnotability" are moot. Mikkalai 07:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Also, my search revealed the mainstream usage of the "chickenwire" term in chemistry and nanotechnology. Hence the joke has serious connotations, confirming its notability. I guess most voters should have taken a refresher course in organic chemistry. Mikkalai 07:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Many of the voters appear to know more about organic chemistry than you think. They know enough to immediately recognize a long-standing organic chemistry joke (one of several) when they see it. Here's a refresher course: Repeat "Chemists have senses of humour, too." to yourself several hundred times. Uncle G 13:50, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
- That I've already learned while surfing the web. Therefore I am baffled by the vote. A long-stading joke deserves some respect. Mikkalai 15:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We aren't discussing whether it deserves respect. We are discussing whether it deserves an encyclopaedia entry. And, as always, that involves answering the two questions whether the encyclopaedia needs an article by this name and whether the encyclopaedia needs this actual article itself. The joke clearly doesn't deserve the encyclopaedia article that it has here. Even if one doesn't read the deletion policy, one just has to look at BJAODN to deduce that Wikipedia has a pretty evident long-standing policy of not including hoax articles. That answers the second question. It's also inappropriate for the encyclopaedia to have an article (other than perhaps a redirect) by this name, which should be clear from the fact that three different people here alone know the joke by three different names (and there is a potentially infinite number of variations on the joke — such as 1,1,1729-trimethyl-chickenwire for example). That answers the first. What people have proposed now is, essentially, creating a wholly new article under a wholly new name. And as long as Jmabel's concerns about not simply re-creating this joke article again are addressed, that seems like a reasonable course of action. But that doesn't change the fact that this article by this name should be deleted. Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
- I see the light. Mikkalai 18:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We aren't discussing whether it deserves respect. We are discussing whether it deserves an encyclopaedia entry. And, as always, that involves answering the two questions whether the encyclopaedia needs an article by this name and whether the encyclopaedia needs this actual article itself. The joke clearly doesn't deserve the encyclopaedia article that it has here. Even if one doesn't read the deletion policy, one just has to look at BJAODN to deduce that Wikipedia has a pretty evident long-standing policy of not including hoax articles. That answers the second question. It's also inappropriate for the encyclopaedia to have an article (other than perhaps a redirect) by this name, which should be clear from the fact that three different people here alone know the joke by three different names (and there is a potentially infinite number of variations on the joke — such as 1,1,1729-trimethyl-chickenwire for example). That answers the first. What people have proposed now is, essentially, creating a wholly new article under a wholly new name. And as long as Jmabel's concerns about not simply re-creating this joke article again are addressed, that seems like a reasonable course of action. But that doesn't change the fact that this article by this name should be deleted. Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
- That I've already learned while surfing the web. Therefore I am baffled by the vote. A long-stading joke deserves some respect. Mikkalai 15:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Many of the voters appear to know more about organic chemistry than you think. They know enough to immediately recognize a long-standing organic chemistry joke (one of several) when they see it. Here's a refresher course: Repeat "Chemists have senses of humour, too." to yourself several hundred times. Uncle G 13:50, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
- In fact, this page points at a deficiency of the Joke article, It is full of silly jokes, but lacks professional jokes (I am speaking not about profession-targeting jokes). This chickenwire may be a seed of it. I am surprized that people are happy with shit happens, but uprize against an elegant, professional, but clear to everyone joke. It says something about modern fuck-word-based culture, isn't it? Mikkalai 07:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I have already collected all Google-indexed webpages that mention chickenwire in a chemical context and will make an Chicken_wire_(chemistry) article that will be about the joke as well as of the use of the term in at least two other chemical contexts. Cacycle 09:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, Nick, I am going to put your brag page under vfd, see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Mikkalai 03:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I have already collected all Google-indexed webpages that mention chickenwire in a chemical context and will make an Chicken_wire_(chemistry) article that will be about the joke as well as of the use of the term in at least two other chemical contexts. Cacycle 09:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1,2-Dimethyl-chickenwire has been made a redirect to the completely new article Chicken wire (chemistry). Cacycle 01:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.