Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (momentum)

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 redirect to Momentum. Although several votes were to keep, the fact that some of them were based on human opinion has no doubt caused them to disregard WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN, therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (momentum)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Originally researched stuff that is horribly wrong, (atleast, as to the first value that I checked, about the garden snail one) and I've got exactly zero idea about how he came to the values, other than some attempt at guessing the constituent data of mass and velocity and multiplying them down.Some of the constituent data are sourced but even then, it fails WP:LISTN. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) to high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia.∯WBG^converse 03:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally concurring with Winged Blades of Godric,I fail to see what use at all this 'article' can have on Wikipedia. If it is supposed to be humorours like his 'science' antics at RfA, then it has failed miserably - Wikipedia is not a joke site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand, that when you are into some dubious stuff, why bother to invite greater scrutiny upon yourself?! I arrived here from his RfA question:-) ∯WBG^converse 05:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nearly all of the list entries are either unreferenced or supported by unreliable sources. — Newslinger talk 09:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Also, it doesn't seem fair to be nominating this article for deletion as a reprisal for the creator's !vote at RfA – see WP:HOUND. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the length related RFC/AfD any linked with the one over here? And, please retract your accusations.If you think that I am hounding an editor, AN is thatway. ∯WBG^converse 12:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Are we considering all the articles in the template to deletion or just the badly sourced ones? --MaoGo (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am bothered, this AFD is solely bothered with this particular article. I have launched other AfDs on topics of similar vein, which are all violations of LISTN and/or are ill sourced but not all that are present in the template have been sent to AfD.∯WBG^converse 13:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt is pretty easy to reference the mass and speed for things entered at various magnitudes. This information is readily sourceable. It helps a student of physics to develop a practical appreciation of what a given amount of momentum amountts to. Edison (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read LISTN ? ∯WBG^converse 00:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wasting my time by telling me to read a silly essay. Edison (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison:--I did not know, that you, (despite having the shiny badge), won't know WP:LISTN and shall be aided by an explict link.Apologies,∯WBG^converse 16:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And, did you read the nomination statement which explicitly mentions and links LISTN?∯WBG^converse 17:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”It fails some silly essay I linked to” is just not that compelling a ground for deletion. An essay is not a guideline or policy. And badges are not that shiny when you’ve been getting spat on for many years if you ever disagree with someone. Edison (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going with delete in this case. The sourcing is bad; unlike, say, wavelengths or viscosities, it's not a quantity I recall seeing tabulated like this (and I've read a good many science books in my day). By the end, it's a trainwreck. "Momentum of the sun"? Relative to what? XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well known that momentum is mass times velocity. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in creating an order of magnitude of kinetic energies, anytime soon? ∯WBG^converse 14:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be contained in Orders of magnitude (energy). —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli355, nah.....One for kinetic energy, another for electrostatic potential energy, another for gravitational potential energy, you've missed out:-)∯WBG^converse 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a note that both participants and the ultimate closer may benefit from reading the other "orders of magnitude" discussions, as many similar points apply (both ways), but editor exhaustion prevents full duplication
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Originally researched claim is wrong, and this list is notable as it explains to a reader how much quantities such as 1 kg·m/s and 10 kg·m/s are. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Eli355 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Bakazaka (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. Unlike some of the other pages of this type (e.g. mass), it's not really useful to have intuitive points of reference for momentum (except within more specific domain contexts), which is why you don't find lists like this in textbooks. --Steve (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2018 (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.