Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hour hand

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 of the debate was redirect to clock face. I personally did not see anything worth merging but if someone else does, please recover it from the page history. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hour hand[edit]

Extremely trivial information. I don't see anything that can be merged into clock face. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merge to clock face wouldn't be advisable as there is little content of worth in this article. However, a Redirect to that article would be useful. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Capitalistroadster. It might be interesting to have a few factoids about speed if some of the content is merged, but as it is now, it's not worth anything: too many assumptions about clock sizes and such. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why not? It could be expanded. Pintele Yid 06:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and do not merge. The facts are about one particular part of one particular size of hour hand. JPD (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. Why should I be interested in how many obsolete Merkin redneck units the hour hand moves in which time? — JIP | Talk 10:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite-- customary details aside, horology is a often a study of minutiae and split seconds-- it could probably use more entries, maybe even a time-keeping or horology stub tag.Davidrowe 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clock face. It makes too many assumptions about the clock used and thus amounts to a mere factoid which should be covered elsewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't even see a need for a redirect - who's going to hit hour hand instead of clock face? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies my criterion of being more notable than Koga (Pokémon). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-10 14:24
  • Keep. Give it a chance to be expanded. (note to self: must nominate Koga for AfD one of these days...) :) Turnstep 14:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup. There is in fact much more to be written on the hour hand as a feature of a clock, relating to the history of clocks; and I cannot say that this bit of trivia would be out of place in a better article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clock face. PJM 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clock face. If information on the hour hand grows to dominate the clock face article, it can be broken out then. FreplySpang (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup with a chainsaw. What's here is useless trivia, but I feel that an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject. If nobody does so before the AFD is closed, then merge this and tag it with that "redirects with possibilities" template. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Melchoir 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Certainly doesn't merit it's own article, should be part of clock face. Jasmol 02:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, no metric equivalents are given, and since only the US and Libya (or is it Yemen? I forget) have yet to move into the 21st century in this regard, that's important. And I have way better things to do than make these conversions. Second, this topic is subtrivial, and I cannot imagine that anyone would want to know how long it takes an hour hand to move a mile for anything more portentious than winning a bar bet. Denni☯ 03:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK the US is the only country in the world not only to still use obsolete units, but also to not use metric units officially. — JIP | Talk 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the US has been officially metric for over a hundred years, and requires prices to be marked in both systems. What it has failed to do, however, is regulate how big the prices have to be marked, so you get imperial prices in 200point and metric prices in 10 point. The US has, as I'm sure you're aware, done absolutely nothing to encourage the use of the metric system, choosing not even to conduct its own business in metric (except, oddly enough, for the military. go figure.) BTW, I like "Merkin redneck units". I'll be borrowing that one. D[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]][[User:Denni|nni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>&#9775;</font>]] 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why not? You can't really have a clock without an hour hand, so I think it's pretty important. XYaAsehShalomX 14:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The part about speed should be deleted, or at least completely redone, no matter what happens to the article. It isn't just useless trivia, it is garbage. The units are the smallest problem, after all it says it's only talking about the most common American size of clock. But that's wrong - the speed depends on the size of the hour hand, not the size of the clock. Also, the whole hand doesn't move at the same speed - I assume it's talking about the speed of the end of the hand - after all the part of the hand in the centre of the clock doesn't move at all! JPD (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect or whatever it's called. There's useful information here—which should be put into a cool article about the history, design, present state, &c., of clock faces in different regions. So all the info could go into an article on Clocks or Clockfaces or whatever. I usually don't mind letting things that are smaller components of bigger things have their own articles (if we didn't do that, there'd just be one, gigantic article); but this would so neatly fit into a larger article, and probably be more useful with surrounding context about other aspects of clock design. President Lethe 16:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to clock face. *drew 22:48, 15 November 2005 (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.

You have decideed in merging it with clock face. It just means that you hae no real understanding in horlogy. Whatwever. Somedaxy ithe article is going to pup up again in its own right, just as any other major par of a watch.

claude (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hour_hand&oldid=1137917154"