Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenopsia


 * 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. None of the "keep" opinions (to the extent they are even intelligible) indicate that there are reliable sources for this topic (instead they indicate the opposite, as Elmidae points out).  Sandstein  23:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kenopsia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BEFORE brings up nothing that doesn't directly link back to the Tumblr blog "The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows", the most "notable" of which being a passing reference to the post in the book Feminism and Intersectionality in Academia – another one being a horoscope in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. At its core, this subject has no original, reliable literature upon which to base an encyclopedic entry. At best, this subject in its current state of notability could be reinstated on Wiktionary with attestation such as the aforementioned book chapter mention, but it's so flimsily and nebulously defined by essentially one anonymous person as to be wholly unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. The article's current state – completely uncited, full of unverifiable speculation about when kenopsia may allegedly manifest – reflects this. This was originally PRODed by and was endorsed by me soon after, but it was removed by  without a mention in the edit summary, and they haven't gotten back in touch with me.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  17:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge This is especially topical during this year of pandemic lockdowns and there doesn't seem to be a better word for the concept. In any case, the obvious alternative to deletion is merger to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey, Andrew. Topicality doesn't define whether or not a subject merits its own Wikipedia article; notability guidelines do. A (very) partial merge actually seems like a fine idea to me and like something I would Support, as I wasn't aware TDoS had a Wikipedia page. As I said, I've found citations linking back to this definition, so it would be a pretty trivial matter to include a mention of it under the 'Notable words' section. As far as what can be merged over? I would say "not much". The last two paragraphs are basically unsalvageable OR. Most of the first paragraph is fine, as is the concept's relationship to COVID-19 (with appropriate sourcing). The best rationale for a merge, in my opinion, is just the redirect that would be created to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete in its current form the article is uncited and OR, a similar BEFORE to the noms was carried out by myself before I PROD'ed this with results as are so well explained by TheTecnician27 above in the nomination for AfD. JW 1961   Talk  18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero treatment in the scientific literature, and outside that it's dictdefs. Without a minimum of independent coverage, there's also no call for merging anything to the article on the dictionary - sensibly that article is not a listing of all the contents and restricts itself to actually notable terms ("Sonder"). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge Hello, i am the creator of the article, i had not heard of the concept of Kenopsia until i saw a youtube video which mentioned it and i decided to research, just like you, i couldn't find any reputable sources other then the tumblr blug, after using some of googles tools to try to track down the first mention (as to create a "History" section), but while the tumblr blog wasn't scientific in any way i decided to cite it as it seemed to be the earliest mention of "Kenopsia" and while i do somewhat believe that i should not have written the article due to lack of sources, i didn't realize that there was an article for TDoS already, so i would be fine if it was merged, but my article isn't the first, there's other articles that don't have much of a lead either and they too describe emotions, i couldn't find much about noctcaelador or hireath on google or any other search engines, of course those articles do have better leads then just one tumblr blog, hireath i would like to think is part of welsh culture and the concpet of noctcaelador was created by a William E. Kelly, a person who is likely more known then the tumblr blog i cited for my article, and one last thing before i sign off, i would like to believe that wikipedia is one of the most trusted websites in the world, and we all have our duty to make sure that articles stay true and original, many people use wikipedia and trust it, i've used it for many years, so has everyone i have known, if i wanted to know about something the first place i usually go to is wikipedia, and when an article doesn't exist i use google, but when that just brings up a tumblr blog, i know that i'd want to create an article for it on this safe, trustful website that almost everyone knows about, and so future people won't have to click on a random tumblr link to know more, which is still a risk in 2021, and that's why i not only joined wikipedia but also why i created the article, to share my knowledge with the world, to contribute, to make a little known concept that only a few may have known about, avalible to the entire world population of english speakers and readers, thank you for reading. OGWFP (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's cut to the chase: i couldn't find any reputable sources other then the tumblr blug - there's your problem. If there are no reliable sources, we cannot have an article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows has WP:MADEUP a lot of neologisms, but they need not be made into redirects. Not a real thing or substantively and reliably covered as such whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.