Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alk-

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A merge can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alk- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @DannyS712: Page Alk- has stood for 13 years with no serious objections. Understanding these common components of names of organic chemicals is an important part of organic chemistry. See Template:Orgchemsuffixes.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument for deletion is "Queried speedy delete". What does that mean? ChemNerd (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChemNerd: Someone wanted to speedy-delete it, and someone else changed into an AfD (= articles for deletion), to get it discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Could it be merged into Hydrocarbon? I just feel that having these dictionary-type stubs isn't as helpful as including the etymology in the article about the topic itself --DannyS712 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For once happily based on Other Stuff Exists. See that "Organic chemistry affixes" sidebar at the bottom? We want to have an article on each of these. Remaining at stub size for a long time is not a reason for deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Is that really what we want? What does WP:NOTDICT mean in practice, then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My take would be that if the item is an integral part of a limited series of articles of otherwise viable length, that would trump NOTDICT. (Having said that, some of the others are hard at the limit themselves (-ol), and at least one is an actual Wiktionary link... ) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything to persuade that all of those things including -Alk shouldn't just go to Wiktionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say I'm wavering now, having checked out the lot. A bunch of section redirects to IUPAC_nomenclature_of_organic_chemistry might actually just do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the source of these pages is a failed merger discussion at Talk:IUPAC_nomenclature_of_organic_chemistry#Merger_proposal. Personally I would have been inclined to merge or perhaps collect them into a single nomenclature page. The sentence in the existing article should be add to wikt:alk as that dictionary entry there is not a substitute for what is currently here. --mikeu ^talk 23:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I see no reason why this dictionary definition/etymology can't be covered at IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry. I'm not sure this is even an affix that would belong in that navbox – it's the root to which the -ane, -ene, and -yne suffixes are added, but it's not an affix itself. Reywas92^Talk 03:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia might not be a dictionary, but it does need to at least provide definitions for the technical terms that it uses throughout a topic area. We do need this content somewhere, and the only question is whether this content will be in a dedicated article (even if a perma stub), or within some other article. I don't think we really need an AfD for that: it can be left to be taken care of by the normal editorial practices of the people who look after this area. – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the above comment. The information in this article and referenced by the infobox are relevant to students studying chemistry and therefore encyclopedic. It is more a question of where and how to organize this material so that it can be easily found and presented in a consistent and clear manner. For these reasons I can't support delete; a merge or reorganization is imho more appropriate. --mikeu ^talk 16:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP is not a dictionary. Maybe redirect to alk- on Wiktionary, as some of the other affixes in the template do. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep per my two comments above. --mikeu ^talk 00:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.