Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 hours in a day

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 speedily deleted by author request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hours in a day

24 hours in a day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The article presents a number of highly speculative reasons for the 24 hour day. Although these are mathematically correct, reliable sources have not been provided linking them to the invention of the 24 hour clock. Therefore the entire article is original research by synthesis. The only verifiable content, that the 24 hour clock was invented in ancient Egypt, is already discussed with sources in the article 12 hour clock. silly rabbit (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, might this be possibly speedy as a posible hoax? D.M.N. (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Not really speediable, but nothing reliable to merge. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This page was produce from the scheme of infinity symbol article, any explanation in wiki about the origin of the 24 hours "choice" is speculative. The "dimensions in nature" is too speculative? It's just another possible explanation, with no less legitimity than the other explanations. If anyone can send me a non-speculative explanation about this topic, I will be glad to receive it. I also would be glad to merge the article, for example in a compact form without illustrations. Firedrop (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In fact in the infinity symbol article, the possibility of the 8 being a hourglass functions very well and is an impressive possibility, the dimensional 24 is same minded. At least the article can be compacted to one possible explanation of 24 in the hour article or the 24 hour clock, without its illustrations for better integration?Firedrop (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons I wrote when prodding it: it's original research by synthesis. The individual facts used as "evidence" here (the structure of the garnet crystal, or the existence of certain regular 4-polytopes) are not in question, but there is no reliable sourcing for putting them together into a theory that they had anything to do with the origins of our system of time measurement. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please check the present state of the article, anything over hypothetical has been removed, in order, I repeat, to follow the scheme of the infinity symbol article. Should I remove it myself?Firedrop (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Infinity symbol is (as of this writing) decorated with a notice that it contains unsourced claims. This is not a model to emulate. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mostly WP:OR or duplication of info already included in Hour. Pburka (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep just another hypothesis, can be added to the hour article hypothesisFiredrop (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. OK for WP:OR as no external source cited this hypothesis before, thanks for your time. Firedrop (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Based on this !vote, I've tagged the article for WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article on days gives enough information. Martarius (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. In its present form appears to be almost entirely OR. Also, a bit of a content fork for 12-hour clock. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentThis deletion process was truly catalyzing for my hypothesis, I speedily needed to change regular to rhombic dodecahedron (only rhombic files 3D space). Also it made me discover the interesting honeycomb structure and it's possible observation by the A.Egyptians both for hexagon and rhombic dodecahedral honeycomb. Thanks to all of you! Firedrop (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article titled hour reports the origins in ancient Egypt of the practice of dividing the day into 24 hours. The fact that honeycombs satisfy a principle of minimum energy is almost certainly reported in some appropriate article too, and the claim that these two both belong in the same article for the reasons proposed just isn't cogent at all. Similarly for the various other topics in this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentThe idea is crystal clear: they had the star clock during the night and the sun during the day. Now they needed to choose a number that permits to divide the day into parts. The whole context is periodic, periodic days, years etc...

In the 2D what is more appealing than the also periodic shape called hexagon that appears as minimal energy..., same for the 3D rhombic dodecahedron, and knowing that in the 1D they are only 3 objects, their is a good possibility that 24 looked liked the ideal number to symbolize time. It's just a hypothesis, but it refers to a very simple observational process of conceptualizing and assimilating the dimensions.Firedrop (talk) 23:45, 17 May 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.