RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Cyanocobalamin

Cyanocobalamin | Result: caught in a landslide, no escape from deletion

Cyanocobalamin (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Too stubby.n FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Being a stub is not a problem. Everything starts as a stub. The problem is that it has nothing obvious to do with the mission statements.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. --JorisEnter (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Stub + no obvious missionality. Bongolian (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Yeah, I couldn't find any significant woo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 22:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Not missional. And it is a terribly stubby stub. It's only slightly longer than the "See also" description that links to it here. That's like a bad parody of wiki linking. And I don't think that starting an article by writing one sentence and expecting the wiki fairies to create the rest is something we should encourage. Spud (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep

You don't want to start with one line and let the "wiki fairies" create the rest, so we should start with ZERO lines and expect the wiki fairies to create the rest? That doesn't sound very rational.--Kittycat (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can't write more than one sentence about something, then you shouldn't create the article. It's better to have nothing at all than an unhelpful stub. The better option is to wait for somebody else to create the article, rather than you creating an article about something you know next to nothing about. Spud (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• The only article linking it is Laetrile. Does this have any relevance to that? - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Laetrile contains cyanide and is called "vitamin" B₁₇, so I put a link to a real vitamin containing cyanide. And then I created the page for it.--Kittycat (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• Maybe there is altie woo about it; I will look, but otherwise delete it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 16:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  Well I found this at NaturalNews, but it I don't know what to make of it. It appears to argue against Cyanocobalamin because it isn't natural and *gasp* has cyanide molecules. Most of the article, though, talks about vitamin B12 deficiency.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why was this AfD'd instead of instadeleted? Honestly guys, there's 'promising stub', 'stub that could turn into something moderately interesting' and then there's this... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 42016 AQD (UTC)