Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 E0 m

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 Keep all, consensus is that these articles are a valid topic but that renaming or reorganising them should be discussed. Davewild (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1 E0 m

1 E0 m (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

1 E-24 m

1 E-23 m

1 E-22 m

1 E-21 m

1 E-20 m

1 E-19 m

1 E-18 m

1 E-17 m

1 E-16 m

1 E-15 m

1 E-14 m

1 E-13 m

1 E-12 m

1 E-11 m

1 E-10 m

1 E-9 m

1 E-8 m

1 E-7 m

1 E-6 m

1 E-5 m

1 E-4 m

1 E-3 m

1 E-2 m

1 E-1 m

1 E+1 m

1 E+2 m

1 E+3 m

1 E+4 m

1 E+5 m

1 E+6 m

1 E+7 m

1 E+8 m

1 E+9 m

1 E+10 m

1 E+11 m

1 E+12 m

1 E+13 m

1 E+14 m

1 E+15 m

1 E+16 m

1 E+17 m

1 E+18 m

1 E+19 m

1 E+20 m

1 E+21 m

1 E+22 m

1 E+23 m

1 E+24 m

1 E+25 m

1 E+26 m

First of all the titles to these pages are misleading they are not actually about the respective distances and would be more accurately titled something like "list of objects between X and Y long".
These lists vary between containing nothing at the extremes (examples 1 E-20 m 1 E-21 m) to being reasonable in length in the middle (example 1 E+4 m). I do not think that these lists belong in an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and these appear to be a form of non-encyclopaedic cross categorisations. Do people really want to know that flying height of the head of a hard disk is of the same order as the diameter of DNA helix?

It seems likely that some of the lists will always remain empty whereas others will be impossible to complete, 1 E+1 m could contain a good proportion of every notable building ever made. Notable scales (such as the Planck Scale) have articles and if people want examples of the different orders of magnitudes in regard to length Orders of magnitude (length) provides a nice table (possible redirect target – although I don’t see many people typing in these article titles). Being related by length isn’t really notable connection between objects and I don’t see that these lists serve an encyclopaedic purpose. Guest9999 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge all into one article. Not notable on their own, but together, maybe. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• As mentioned above Orders of magnitude (length) might be an appropriate target - it already contains what is effectively a summary of the individual articles. Guest9999 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep excellent almanac type entry that I come to Wikipedia for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Almanacs generally cover a specific topic - a sport, geography, economics, sport - I realise Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia but I really can't imagine that an almanac attempting to list everything in existance by length (which seems pretty indiscriminate) cis really a suitable topic for any encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Do people really want to know that flying height of the head of a hard disk is of the same order as the diameter of DNA helix? --- Actually, yes. That's nifty and informative, which is preceisely what an encyclopedia should be. Whether these pages are the best way to fulfill that purpose, I'll have to think about, so neutral for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• If that information was on either the DNA or hard disk page it would be deleted as unencyclopaedic trivia, I don't think that the subject of comparing objects of the same length has been suitably documented by reliable sources. I think I'll stop commenting now - going to start to look obsessed. Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, if that information was on those pages, it would be regarded as trivia, since in those contexts it is trivial. But trivia in one context is not trivia in another - here it is a useful addition to the page. So if you delete this page, where is that information going to go? Somewhere where it will be deleted as trivial? Grutness...wha? 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete these subjects are best covered in other contexts, articles, or lists. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - part of a regular pattern used not only with length, but also with area, volume, weight, and a host of other physical measures. Why single out length? Sure, there's a summary at orders of magnitude (length), but it is just that, a summary, and carries none of the extra detail which is possible from a series of connected articles like this. Note too that the nominated pages are still growing - if they are redirected to orders of magnitude (length), then it is very likely that that will grow to the point where it needs splitting very rapidly - and what would it be split into? Back to these articles. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is collecting miscelaneous measures together that as a whole are valuable, but as facts scattered in articles is not findable. The more extreme values would be less known. This is in the same category as number and year articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The comparison to number and year articles is a compelling one, I have to say. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge all per GW simulations. Honestly, number and year articles aren't really a compelling argument, because you can cross-apply the same arguments (both pro and con) to both sides. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Although the information is useful, I think that the organization of the "orders of magnitude" project is awful, too square for hippies and too hip for squares. It's too simplistic for people who appreciate scientific notation, and would write "2.5 E3 m" or say "2.5 x 10³ meters" sooner than they would say 2,500 meters. And it's too technical for the non-scientist. To quote an argument cited for keep, "facts scattered in articles are not findable", and the approach of separate articles doesn't illustrate relative size. Assuming that this was general information aimed at the average individual, I can say that it misses the mark. If you can't write for your intended audience, then you have a problem. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep—These articles provide practical examples of units of scale that serve a useful purpose on other pages. Also I don't think that merging into a single page is a practical idea. If necessary the pages can be renamed to eliminate the "1".—RJH (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• After thinking about it some more, weak keep. I find Graeme Bartlett's comparisons to number and year articles compelling, but as has been alluded to several times by the above, the naming system here is attrocious. It doesn't help that the titles are one scale, but the articles actually cover a range. So keep, and start a discussion on some centralized talk page about how to reorganize this stuff better. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Extremely useful lists--but they need clearer titles, for I would never have guessed the contents. Could conceivably be merged into one very long list, but I think this way is more appropriate--thats a discussion for the talk page. The assemblage of gacts into a relevant collection of information is what encyclopedias are for.,DGG (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect as inheriting notability from Powers of Ten, and let's argue instead about what their base names should be, which is the whole problem. I propose "1 yoctometre", "100 zeptometres", etc., through "100 yottametres". For purposes of people finding them, redirect from many other potential versions such as "1 centimeter" = "1 centimetre", "ten nanometres" = "10 nanometres" (these first two also combine), "1hm" = "1 hm" = "1 hectometre", "one thousandth metre" = "1 millimetre", "one milliard metres" = "1 gigametre" (use of >100 and <.01 is limited only to text, and only with meter and metre), "one billion metres" = "1 gigametre" (not "1 terametre"), and occasional exceptions like "1 myriameter" = "10 kilometres". Also add to disambiguation pages like "10K". That should be enough to define a system, y'all can take it from there. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep - very very old Wikipedia articles that seem to have been originated from the "orders of magnitude" topics. Have to argue "spirit of Wikipedia" here instead of referring to the rules. This is really one of those topics that the Wikipedia guidelines accept as "an exception" - I'd really want to have this sort of information in my encyclopedia. Deleting them is like deleting 640s BC and associated topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2008 (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.