Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ideas inspired by food in STEM fields

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 delete. Sandstein 08:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ideas inspired by food in STEM fields[edit]

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

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

Declined PROD without comment. My concerns are: arbitrary, non-notable inclusion criteria. No evidence that entries comprise a recognized group or set per WP:LISTN. In short, Listcruft, a list for list's sake. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept for the list was created outside of Wikipedia and is sufficiently documented. The article concept is of general interest and enhances the encyclopedia. --Alterego (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be demonstrated. We need evidence that STEM concepts with food in their names is a topic that has received collective coverage in reliable sources. Note this forum discussing the Potato paradox is a user-generated, unreliable source. Also, please do not move or create copies of this page while the discussion is in progress. I've now added List of STEM concepts with food in their names to this AFD. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are over a dozen people at that source that agree that it is a real concept, whereas you are just one person disagreeing because you are bored. Furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lastly, the obviousness of the concept intrinsically proves its notability via Face validity. --Alterego (talk)

I suggest you read WP:Notability. Something isn't notable in Wikipedia terms just because your mates say it is. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear Listcruft - throwing random stuff together with no reliable sourcing whatsoever. And it's not enough to have reliable sourcing for the list items, there must be reliable sourcing that discusses these concepts with food in their names substantially. Otherwise, it's got to go. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amusing trivia but not encyclopedic. Concept doesn't appear to be covered in reliable sources. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider conversion into categories so as to retain the linkages (categories and subcategories are not subject in the same way to WP:42 after all), then delete list-article since it seems very arbitrary (wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information). I'm not picky about the categorization-structure-details, but it seems like a Category:Food-based_analogy would be the starting point, with (iff needed) a category-subset for STEM fields. There are a lot more items in this category that I can think of, just off the top of my head. Not sure that the article improves the encyclopedia, but I found the list interesting, and if it were completed it would potentially be edifying, by contrast to say, this one.[1] A lot of the value would rest on picking a correct categorization-scheme, however, and I'm not sure that my suggestion of Category:Food-based_analogy is sufficiently narrow. User:Alterego, do you have thoughts on my proposal for categories-not-listArticle? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories generally follow defining traits- not simply any trait that some people find amusing. Thus I don't think categories are any better. Of course, anyone is free to re-create this list on any number of off-Wikipedia sites, and should multiple reliable sources begin discussing what is essentially "tangentially food-related math and science things" (STEM covers much more than the mathematical concepts in this list) as a somewhat cohesive set, then perhaps one day a list on Wikipedia would be warranted. But until then, leave stuff like this to BuzzFeed. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say makes sense; the reason that these stick out as 'potentially interesting' to me, is because the scientists and theorists and such, had to specifically *decide* to name their theory/algorithm/whatever, in the fashion that they did. If these were pet names, or humorous nicknames made up by other people that would be one thing; some of them are slang, e.g. "spaghetti code" is just programmer-jargon, but many are the literal names of mathematical theories. Agree it would be hard to specify a defining-trait here (if I could pinpoint it I'd suggest the correct category-name), so I guess wikipedia will have to wait on this one. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG as already outlined. PianoDan (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. This is the kind of fun, quirky stuff you used to find after falling down the Wikipedia rabbit hole. Unfortunately it does not meet modern standards of WP:EVERYTHINGISVERYSERIOUSHERE or WP:WEAREALLTERRIFICALLYIMPORTANT and should be deleted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2015 (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.