Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, although I'd like to see someone request for it to be userfied. east.718 at 20:38, 11/15/2007

List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving

[edit]
List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article seems to basically consist of an unreferenced list of various forms of movement, all of which I'm fairly sure are covered in other articles. Perhaps some of this could be merged, but the article as a whole is fairly redundant. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SAVE I'm the author, and this article is actually NOT a joke. The usefulness of this information is that it assembles all of the many ways that motion is constantly occurring without our awareness. As a compilation it provides this information without a reader having to already know how this motion is occurring, and search out the information in the different articles. The title is funny, but I couldn't think of a better one, I'm open to a better title. I think the information is useful and interesting, given it's redundant of the articles from which I gathered the information but so are many lists. Examples of similar useful lists which are entirely redundant include: List of human anatomical parts named after people, List of distinct cell types in the adult human body, List of Presidents of the United States, List of experiments, etc. Since this is a redundant list the references are in the main articles, why be even more redundant I figured, but references are available. I don't believe that the same standard for citations applies to lists as to regular articles. In fact, I can't ever remember seeing a list with references. So if the title is the issue, please suggest a new title and don't delete this useful and interesting incomplete list. Thanks for your consideration. Earthdirt 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - even if all I can say is WP:ILIKEIT. It's not indiscriminate, it denotes reality and provides information, and if the author sources it (with footnotes, please) I'm game for keeping it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - because I do not think it belongs on Wikipedia and I nor do I see a need for it. And sentences like "At this moment a reader's arms, hands, fingers, feet, toes, torso, head, face, eyes, and mouth may be moving"...well, yeah. Mr_pand 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I can see a point to it, but whether it's encyclopedic is debatable. The fact that it's unreferenced, and the title violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references makes me swing towards delete on this one. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change my opinion to keep but rename to something appropriate, now references provided. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The authored has provided multiple citations as of 22:56 Nov. 9. PLEASE RE-EVALUATE THIS ARTICLE NOW THAT IT IS CITED IF YOU COMMENTED ABOVE THIS POINT. Oh, and yes the title almost certainly needs changed, but that's no reason to delete the entire article. I thought Wikipedia was about collaborating to create excellent articles not just to delete those that have issues. I think I have fixed most of the issues brought up, other than the title at this point. The author --> Earthdirt 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge/rename The concept is not silly. See E pur si muove and Sources of improper motion for more sober treatments of similar material. I think this article would be best merged into Motion (physics) in which it could be a section listing examples of motion at the micro and macroscopic level. That article has been tagged as needing expansion since Feb 2007. Think positive, folks. Colonel Warden 23:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This must be the strangest way of testing the limits of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but linking these various ways in which people can be said to be 'moving' is not encyclopaedic. It's linking unconnected things in a way which suggests original research, and is a list of coincidences. I wouldn't object to this as a user page or sub-page but it is not suitable for an article. Sam Blacketer 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if deleted, the title should be listed at WP:DAFT - it's a doozy. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Despite the really bizarre title, this is well-sourced, and the many different levels of moving (rotation of earth, revolution of earth around sun, revolution of solar system around galactic center, expansion of universe) etc. have long been the subject of scientific comment. This is the first I've seen that references movement at the subatomic level as well. I hate that the (silly) title has led some people to assume that the article itself is "just silly". Some of us refuse to eat a Tombstone Pizza; I avoided reading "What Color is Your Parachute?" for the very same reason, yet it was an excellent book. I'm saving it to my computer, and I encourage the author to keep working on this one. Good concept, bad p.r. Mandsford 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still don't see how the addition of those references (or the few subsequent "keep" !votes) address the major problems with this article, including the violations of WP:OR and specifically WP:SYN. The individual statements are correct, no doubt, but they are tied together merely because they make up an interesting collage of information. ◄Zahakiel► 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intersting, but not encyclopedic.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Collection of factoids, no actual encyclopedic content, and carries strong resemblence to chain letters. Would we be writing articles about a car in the same way, i.e. taking into account the movement of the planet and the galaxy to calculate its speed?! Odedee 08:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments' - I think this is certainly not original research -- the concept is taught very often in high schools, aided by resources like this (one could easily find heaps of similar resources). If kept, though, this definitely needs a name change. "List of how" is kind of a borderline red flag since "list" denotes multiple elements while "how" implies that a single concept is covered -- "List of ways in which" would be more appropriate in my opinion, or "list of levels." I don't really like motion in the title, but I can't think of a better alternative that would avoid it. And while I like the creativity of "Wikipedians," some might see it as slightly unencyclopedic. — xDanielx T/C 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR - basically a collection of more-or-less unrelated facts brought together in an essay. While it may be interesting, it isn't encyclopedic as a collection. Cosmo0 17:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love reading from the folks who say that Earthdirt has done "original research" rather than not enough sourcing. But they may be right. It's possible that Earthdirt actually went out in a spaceship and observed all these things. Dammit, Earthdirt, if that's true... I'm disappointed. You can NOT write an article on your own observations!!! Mandsford 02:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment - "Original research" does not merely mean first-person observation. See the synthesis clause of that official policy; specifically these key portions, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C [...] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article [...] In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be interactively serviced in Wikipedia." (emphasis in the original) The article's author is tying together fragmentary bits of data entirely unrelated to each other except that they each deal with a kind of movement on some level, whether it be cosmic, geographic or biological, and this patchwork does not add up to an encyclopedia article. It's original (though not first-person, do avoid confusion) research. ◄Zahakiel► 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment response - I (the author) strongly disagree that I have presented any original synthesis in this article (which is a list). I have followed the criteria for creating a list as detailed on Wikipedia:Lists this list could be classified as an "annotated hierarchical list" as described on Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). I have clearly set a topic (motion at all levels which is occurring in direct relation to all humans at all times) and inclusion parameters in the list; the parameters are not in my opinion too broad nor too focused (this list should be thought of as an interesting subset of List of forms of motion within the universe which would be too long to be practical. Also, the information included clearly deals with existent, verifiable, and relevant human knowledge (and is thus encyclopedic). I created this article specifically as a companion for Motion (physics) which I directly linked it to and to which it directly relates and adds. Upon consulting the synthesis clause of that official policy I begin by reading a title of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" now this to me is clearly not what I have done or have sought to do, mainly because there is no new conclusion or position which is being advanced I am only LISTING a number of ways that motion is occurring directly to all humans all the time. I have made no new conclusions like the one listed in the example of that section, there is no logical progression which produces an "A+B = C must be true" thesis, it is just a list assembling well documented human knowledge. Furthermore, the statement in WP:SYN which says "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be interactively serviced in Wikipedia."" only relates to article which make arguments and take positions, which this list clearly doesn't. Either way though, I know that any scientist could tell you it is certainly NOT a new idea that humans are subject to a variety of forms of motion on a variety of different levels at all times. Earthdirt 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, although I would like see references included for this concept as a whole. Also, please rename it to something that doesn't include Wikipedia, e.g. List of motions to which humans are subjected, or something better than that :) .--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely original research without any sources whatsoever supporting the premise of the article. It could perhaps wind up as Wikipedia space humor, but it is not a verifiable article for articlespace. What on Earth does "reading Wikipedia" have to do with how fast we are moving through the universe? Nothing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What article are you reading? This article is extremely well sourced. Every single type of motion listed in the article is easily verifiable and has a source. And yes, we have established that the title sucks and certainly needs changed. But that is certainly not a criteria for deletion. Earthdirt 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; the author objects to the use of the term "synthesis" for his research, because, quoting, "there is no new conclusion or position which is being advanced." This is, however, irrelevant, because the policy does not only deal with novel conclusions, but conclusions which are, themselves, unpublished in independent and reliable sources. The author does not cite any source that ties together these various kinds of motion in a smooth continuum, therefore the research he has done from the various sources that support his statements is... by definition... original. Wikipedia is not a place for information that results from the tying-together of facts by its article's editors, but of reporting the notable and verifiable work of others. If several authors had deliberately contributed data toward the topic of "the overall movement of human bodies as seen from a cosmic perspective" then yes, the sources provided would be suitable to discuss that pre-resarched and pre-published topic. This is what the emphasized "in relation to the topic" clause of WP:SYN indicates. That's decidedly not what we're currently considering for deletion. It's interesting, as some editors have commented. It may have some limited use, as others have opined, but neither of these factors satisfy our inclusion policy. It is research that has not been previously published in a reliable source outside of the article itself; it's original. ◄Zahakiel► 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed; I can't believe that it's Wikipedia policy to not write compilations of relevant existing research relating to a topic if no one has previously compiled it. I think people do this all the time. In fact, would go so far to say as this is the very purpose of an encyclopedia: to organize and assemble human knowledge in a meaningful and accessible way despite the fact that most human knowledge is pretty fragmented. In was reading one of User:Zahakiel articles (Wormwood (star) and noticed that the first part of the article was extremely well referenced and then he got to a section entitled "References in literature" and no citations are provided for the entire section which is a list of four works of fiction that refer to the wormwood omen. Is this list also an originally researched WP:SYN? Or a compilation of facts that are well known and understood if you looked at the sources? Or maybe this is a bad example, maybe somewhere a reliable source has published that this Wormwood star has before been listed in those four works of literature (which i doubt). My List article is no different, it lists basic facts about the universe and specifically types of well understood motion which relate directly to humans in our universe. I am touched that everyone thinks I am such an original thinker, but sadly no, science already knew that all these types of motion related to humans. Earthdirt 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you disagree with the original research policy, you are welcomed to present your case on the relevant talk page. Chris! ct 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a refresher WP:OR states that "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Notice that it doesn't say you can't compile new lists of previously known information. All I'm saying is that there is no unpublished or original work in my article, nor an original synthesis producing a "new idea". It's a compilation of well known and well unified facts. That's all I'm saying, I have no fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia policy as you suggest. Are you suggesting that an encyclopedia is a not "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" oh and don't forget that a "A compendium is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge". Nearly every substantial article in Wikipedia involves some new and excellent compilation of knowledge, which is what makes Wikipedia so awesome. Earthdirt 00:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, since "anyone can edit" all the articles on this site, you may want to check out the history of Wormwood (star) and see who is responsible for the well referenced sections and who isn't. And even if I was personally responsible for the worst of articles, it wouldn't change the policies with which you are disagreeing; this isn't a personal matter, nor is it about what other stuff is floating around. Of course, you're welcome to try and get consensus for removing the popular culture section of an article I began some time ago if you like. Wikipedia is a compendium of collected knowledge, yes, but knowledge that has already been presented by a verifiable source. What you're doing is a synthesis of material, which IS precisely what that policy is written to have editors avoid; evene though you say you have no fundamental disagreement with it, there it is. ◄Zahakiel► 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that synthesis of published material is still original research. WP:SYN prohibits one from compiling unrelated or indiscriminate facts. And that is exactly what you did with your article. If you have no fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia policy, then I see no reason for you to argue. Chris! ct 02:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to both You are correct that this is not personal nor about what else is floating around I only provided that example for illustration that many/most articles on Wikipedia compile without synthesizing (sorry if you found that inappropriate to do). Synthesis is when a new position is created, there is no new position being created here, which is particularly evident since the famous comedy group Monty Python did a parody of an account of "cosmic motion". Also, the assertation that this articles is a compilation of "unrelated or indiscriminate facts" would be a violation of WP:INFO not WP:SYN. These are actually essentially mutually exclusive arguments as random info precludes a meaningful new synthesis. Yet again, I would like to say that I don't feel that Wikipedia's policy towards synthesis is meant to include compilation (since an encyclopedia is by definition a compilation), after all WP:SYN clearly talks about an "editor's opinion" and a "position" neither of which I have take in this article. I believe it may be you who needs to take the advice that: "If you have no fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia policy, then I see no reason for you to argue." Or if we would like to actually try and solve our dilemma please share what you think my new and original synthesis/position/idea/thesis is and I will post it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics to get expert advice on whether the ideas is actually new or not. Earthdirt 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not; random info. can most certainly be synthesized into a position which, as you seem to have ignored earlier, need not be novel, simply unpublished and un-noted by any single reliable source. This is not a problem you seem willing to address. There is also an issue with WP:NOT#INFO, but that's less of an issue than the flagrant O.R. violation. There is nothing mutually exclusive about an article that has multiple unrelated problems. As far as the footnote you link to below, that has nothing to do with this matter since it is not a historical perspective. What we've got here is the fact that you happen to like this topic, but it is neither notable (in the form you've presented it) nor is it encyclopedic in tone. While the latter could be fixed with careful editing, the subject matter will remain as problematic as ever - hence the objections it has received. ◄Zahakiel► 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Earthdirt, I think you still misunderstand why your article should be deleted. Yes you are right about the purpose of Wikipedia. That is to compile knowledge. But you miss the part that the knowledge presented or complied here need to have a verifiable source. It is quite obvious that your entire "compilation of knowledge" here don't have any verifiable source. That is why it is a problem. That is why it counts as original research. Chris! ct 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It's certainly a notable topic, and encyclopedic, as expressed by other users above. The Title needs re-wording, the tone could be less Kathy-chatty, and more cites could be added to verify the material. I'm not convinced that this is WP:SYNTH. It needs expert opinion. Bearian 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Merge Wow never seen that article before, what a great compilation. I hope it doesn't get nominated for deletion on the same grounds as people's arguments for deletion of this article. There is some quantitative information and many references in this article not already in Orders of magnitude (speed), and this annotated sub-list would make a nice addition to Motion (physics) if given one of the names suggested by DHowell. I would be okay with merging this article with Orders of magnitude (speed) and Motion (physics) so the information is not lost. Then this page could be deleted due to the silly name. Can we find consensus on those grounds? The author ==> Earthdirt 17:44, 14 November 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_how_the_average_Wikipedia_reader_is_currently_moving&oldid=1148848852"