User:Deacon Vorbis/XfD log

This is a log of all deletion discussion nominations made by this user using Twinkle's XfD module.

If you no longer wish to keep this log, you can turn it off using the preferences panel, and nominate this page for speedy deletion under CSD U1.

September 2020

1. Wikipedia:Too many cooks nominated at RfD; notified LeadSongDog (talk · contribs); Target: Wikipedia:Consensus (notified) 01:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This redirected to a blurb of WP:Consensus, but it doesn't seem to have existed there for quite some time. Probably best to just kill this.
2. List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation nominated at AfD; notified Will Beback (talk · contribs) 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Per WP:IINFO, this is a an indiscriminate list of people who claim to have learned or practiced TM. In a spot check of sources, all I've seen are one-sentence throwaway mentions in profile pieces, and nothing that indicates that there's any greater significance.
     This is no different from a List of people who have seen Titanic. It's a notable film, and I'd bet we can find quotes from notable people about how they hated/loved it, but it's still not an appropriate topic for a list.
3. List of vegetarians nominated at AfD; notified Mkweise (talk · contribs) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: While a the general topic of vegetarianism is certainly notable, there is no encyclopedic value to collating a list of the people we have articles about who have made some sourceable comment somewhere, sometime indicating that they are or were a vegetarian. Virtually no one on this is list is notable for being a vegetarian. It's almost never a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (although there are undoubtedly occasional exceptions). This list further has columns for "occupation" and "country", but these have nothing to do with being a vegetarian either.
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (second nomination) nominated at RM (technical); New name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (2nd nomination) 00:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Ordinals in XfD noms should be numerical; this screwed up a new nom that I made, with a redirect now sitting in the way.
5. File:Ramzan Kareem Banner.jpg (log) nominated at FfD; notified Wikibijay1 (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This is very unlikely to be an "own work" as claimed in the upload. I'm not sure what the ultimate source is, but a Google image search on this gives a couple matches on stock image sites, and so this appears to be improperly licensed.
6. Pendulum rocket fallacy nominated at AfD; notified Catsmeat (talk · contribs) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: I don't think this concept meets WP:GNG. It seems to be based on a single page/post from someone in 2001, which as far as I can tell is where the term was coined. I'm not even sure of the quality of that source either. Since then, all that seems to exist are things like forum posts that refer back to the original page, or WP's page (or one of the countless mirrors/reprints out there). Searches of older books (that I have access to search) give nothing. I just don't think there's enough to sustain an article here.
7. MOS:QUESTION nominated at RfD; notified SMcCandlish (talk · contribs); Target: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (notified) 13:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This is a fairly recent redirect to the "Instructional and presumptuous language" section of the MOS, presumably because of the note about rhetorical questions. However, the MOS has many notes about questions in various forms all over the place, and this is a somewhat leading redirect because of that. I don't think any of the multiple possibilities really should take precedence, and I suggest deleting. There are 3 incoming links that can be updated if so.

October 2020

1. Predictions of the end of Wikipedia nominated at AfD; notified Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This was a bold redirect to the main Wikipedia article which was reverted, so I'm nominating at AfD. I still wouldn't be opposed to a redirect (or a very very selective merge if anyone wants). My rationale for redirecting was:

     This is a giant pile of WP:SYNTH. Basic statements about editor retention and funds should be at the main article. These aren't predictions as much as loosely related speculations about its future. There's not enough here to sustain a separate article while overcoming the SYNTH problems.

     To expand on that a little, let me first note that the article content doesn't reflect its title. There are no actual predictions. At best there's some vague speculation. And much of it falls more into the general complaint department over at Criticism of Wikipedia (or bias, etc). Furthermore, as I initially noted, general observations about editor retention, funding, and such can (and already do) belong at the general article. Trying to present statistics from a source that's not predicting the end of Wikipedia in a way to make it sound like the end is nigh is again improper synthesis. There's a whole section titled "Possible antidote", which with its very name is trying to bolster the conclusion of this essay-like article, and doing so by taking an article that has nothing to do with the purported topic and folding that in.
     This article takes scattershot articles about criticisms of, observations about funding, trends in editor decline, and so on, and tries to inappropriately synthesize that into some sort of notion that people are predicting Wikipedia's Doom (tm). This is a gross violation of our policy prohibiting original research and must not stay in place. Specific facts may possibly have a home in other articles, and if a redirect is deemed appropriate, I leave it to the discussion to determine where.
2. NKR (NDB) nominated at AfD; notified Mintaka10 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This is a non-notable radio tower, apparently used primarily for aircraft navigation. A basic search and I can't even verify any of the information in the article other than basic existence, let alone see any evidence of notability.
3. List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" nominated at AfD; notified Bishonen (talk · contribs) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Not only does this blatantly fail WP:NLIST (there are no sources discussing these works as a group), but the prose introduction to the list is just WP:OR trying to explain a common theme to the works. This is a pretty clear example of WP:NOTDIR #6 and shouldn't be here.
4. Template:Perspectives of New Music nominated at TfD; notified Hyacinth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: All this does is act as a wrapper for {{cite journal}} with the name of the journal filled in (and many possible parameters not passed). I can't see why this should exist.
5. McShittles nominated at RfD; notified Graham87 (talk · contribs); Target: wiktionary:McShittles (notified) 22:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Completely pointless soft redirect. Wikipedia's search already lists results from Wiktionary. This is obscure, and there's no benefit to keeping this. To the closer, this had been full-create protected prior to recreation (I believe due to an LTA issue), so if deleted, that should probably be reinstated.
6. Eka-barium nominated at RfD; notified Gioguch (talk · contribs); Target: Radium (notified) 00:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Not mentioned at the target; doesn't seem to be used.
7. User:Mender/Comprised Of nominated at MfD; notified Mender (talk · contribs) 15:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This was linked from a project page as a counterargument to GD's essay. Given that it makes no actual argument and the inflammatory edit summary at creation, I think this is safe to kill at this point. I realize user space has quite a bit of leeway, but come on.
8. Van Eck's sequence nominated at AfD; notified Gandalf61 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Declined PROD. I agree with the PRODder that this isn't a sufficiently notable topic for an article. The sources offered (on the talk page and in the article) basically boil down to an OEIS entry (for which Sloane was interviewed about in a Youtube vid) plus various WP:UGC. This doesn't seem to be enough, with no apparent serious study or even popular press accounts. Probably WP:TOOSOON at best.
9. 86 (term) nominated at AfD; notified Thumperward (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This article fails WP:NOTDICT. It consists of a definition, etymology, and a couple examples of attested uses, and it's difficult to see how it could expand beyond that. Notability for words itself is a very high bar, else we could include articles like this for any word (especially recent-ish slangy terms with etymology being discussed).
10. Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems nominated at AfD; notified Drbogdan (talk · contribs) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: This is pretty clearly not a notable topic on its own. It's essentially based on a single source: a paper which just came out and is making the rounds in the pop-sci press. It's a mildly interesting result that might warrant a sentence or two in a related article, but there's nowhere near enough here for such a hyper-narrow topic. Wikipedia is not a dumping groud of science headlines.
11. It's your world! nominated at RfD; notified LZNQBD (talk · contribs); Target: United Nations (notified) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: Not mentioned at the target; very few page views (possibly even meant for the similarly named album or song). Suggest a delete here.
12. Stonks nominated at RfD; notified L293D (talk · contribs); Target: Stock (notified) 05:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: Delete. Silly fad slang term with no information at the target article. This is an implausible search term for someone actually looking for information about stocks.
13. Distinct (mathematics) nominated at RfD; Target: Equality (mathematics) (notified) 17:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: Procedural nom due to an ongoing dispute over the target. I originally turned this into a redirect to Equality (mathematics), which I still favor. The article was an unreferenced mish-mash of OR and HOWTO. I chose this target because when talking about "distinct" objects in mathematics, the general notion of "not equal" is meant (and which has a definition in the lead, all that's needed for this term). On the other hand, Inequality (mathematics) is inappropriate because it focuses more on (in)equations involving inequalities of real numbers, rather than the general notion.