Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phantom mobile device vibration-1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Phantom mobile device vibration" was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 5 delete + 1 anon delete vs 5 keep (including Aramgutang's late vote). Page was deleted on 17 July 2004 by User:VampWillow. Rossami 22:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5 for deletion, 5 against (informal tally added during voting)
Original research? RickK 22:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know it it's "original research," but I've heard this phenomenon discussed in physiological circles before, and think it warrants an article. This one certainly needs work, though. Austin Hair 23:02, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) (See additional comment below. Austin Hair 02:23, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC))
- Original pointless, useless, trivial research, yes. delete. --128.151.43.132 23:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- A tentative "keep." I couldn't find much under this convoluted title, but found many mentions when searching "phantom vibration." Joyous 23:05, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe "many mentions" is too strong. Joyous 23:09, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to this line:
-
- Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should either go to 'votes for deletion' [because they "fail the test of confirmability" (not because they are false)], or be copyedited out.
- I'm not sure why, if Slashdot trolling phenomena is a fair article for Wikipedia, this one isn't. It's not original research, insofar as I did not make up the idea, and I cited my sources. ··gracefool |☺ 23:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's a diffuse neologism - the term itself is certainly unstable, but the idea is widespread enough. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 03:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, or at least not widely adopted usage. I do imagine a new gag, though: "Are you happy to see me, or is your pager going off?" (Ok, so it's not new.) Geogre 00:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Let me not be so flippant. My point of view is that the phenomenon of cerebral rehearsal and repetition is physiological. It happens to video gamers who twitch in their sleep, and it happens to drivers on road trips. It happens after plane flights. I agree that the phenomenon is notable, but I don't know how we can list the information in a way that allows it to be found by users of Wikipedia. The reason that I vote against this is that the neologism is so limited that no one but the author and people on the VfD page know that it exists at this location. We are here to serve as a reference, not a community, first, and I ask whether this information is logically placed. Because it's a neologism, the answer is no. Once this term is common enough that users will come to the site looking for it, it's appropriate to keep this article. Geogre 01:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- So a more general article should be created, and this one should redirect to it? ··gracefool |☺ 03:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, that's my feeling, but I, for my part, can't figure out what a good article title would be. I'm at a loss, except, and I hope this isn't too unhelpful, I think we can't end up duplicating ourselves or hiding the light under a bushel. Geogre 17:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Let me not be so flippant. My point of view is that the phenomenon of cerebral rehearsal and repetition is physiological. It happens to video gamers who twitch in their sleep, and it happens to drivers on road trips. It happens after plane flights. I agree that the phenomenon is notable, but I don't know how we can list the information in a way that allows it to be found by users of Wikipedia. The reason that I vote against this is that the neologism is so limited that no one but the author and people on the VfD page know that it exists at this location. We are here to serve as a reference, not a community, first, and I ask whether this information is logically placed. Because it's a neologism, the answer is no. Once this term is common enough that users will come to the site looking for it, it's appropriate to keep this article. Geogre 01:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- To put the orginal question more succinctly, is this an unstable neologism (in which case it should be deleted), or a diffuse neologism (in which case it may stay)? ··gracefool |☺ 03:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Could be expanded, if possible, but I think it's valid - I've certainly suffered from it Darksun 09:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Andris 10:37, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete original research/neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete neologism. Would hope to see an article built on this, however - one notable example of this phenomenon occurs among jack-hammer operators, who complain (often enough that it gets media space, apparently) that the sensation of the jack-hammer lingers, sometimes for a considerable time, after they have stopped work. Denni☯ 01:58, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
- I can attest to this, and agree that a more comprehensive article covering the phenomenon more generically would be a great deal better. Austin Hair 02:23, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, perfectly valid, but an extensive article on related issues should be written --Aramgutang 12:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
