Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A plane on a conveyor belt: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:43, 11 November 2006

A plane on a conveyor belt

Someone (163.1.126.41 (talk · contribs)) initiated this AfD. I endorse this nomination, looks like nonsense to me. Ezeu 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per norm--Edchilvers 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Horribly written and sourced. In principle such a page could exist, but would require writing over from scratch and much better sourcing. [ Update: see my comments below. Baccyak4H 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) ] Baccyak4H 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a big cleanup, but overall looks like something we should have. --- RockMFR 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 04:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Because I told you to.

User 71.111.28.69 (talk), please elaborate. Your expressed opinion here is not constructive. Baccyak4H 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup The subject is the basis of an important "thought experiment" that has received mention in many sources. The Straight Dope devoted several columns to the issue. As a subject, it is quite notable. Maybe it needs a move to a better name, but it should be kept. --Jayron 32 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayron32 - but I was the original author, so i might be biased. However the topic seems thoroughly debated all over the internet in Blogs, News Columns, and Message Boards. It was nominated at Mythbusters (NGC) forums for a possible future episode. -- SAO123

So who thought it up? If it was a notable individual or group in the field of Physics then yes, I can see how it would be notable. At the moment however the only mention of its origins are that it appears on some Blog sites on the web--Edchilvers 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The posters to Mythbusters are (apparently) non-notable. But I propose that if it can be verified that that series starts producing a segment about this topic (say, getting past the writing stage to the actual production and taping, but not necessarily to having a finished, broadcast segment), that we keep and rewrite. Baccyak4H 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how the the origin (whether it be insignificant or unknown/anonymous) can detract from the prevalence of the question today. I believe that the mere fact of its continued existance is justification enough by itself. Something so insignificant would surely eventually die out in a matter of time, however this has continued for 2+ years. I also site 0.999... as a similar phenomenon with unknown origin, which still stands as being deemed significant today, and also sites The Straight Dope as a valid source.

Also, The Pilot's Lounge Issue #94: It's The Medium, Manfred (free membership required) which is the official Newsletter of AVWeb.com World Premier Independent Aviation News Resource by Rick Durden (Pilot & Columnist for Aviation Consumer) which would meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Self-published sources (online and paper) could also be used to address the significane of the issue - this citation needs to be added to the original article. -SAO123 November 7 2:35pm EDT

Delete This is basically a riddle, and not a particularly famous one. It is like a question on an exam. Basically, while it is interesting and informative, it is not the sort of thing an encyclopedia would use. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I puzzled over this one long day on Straight Dope before I figured out that the conveyer belt was the length of the runway (I thought of it as a treadmill - I figured the plane would either remain stationary or just fall off!) It was a fascinating Straight Dope article. But I'm of the opinion that it's not an encyclopedia article. It is fascinating, but not famous, knotty, but not notable. I've seen it reproduced in different places, but that's common for riddles and puzzles. What I would want to see to make this notable is an article about the riddle in a national publication (i.e. an article about how many people have tried to solve it, the debates it's caused, that it's taking the world by storm...something like that). So I'm in the deletion camp. --TheOtherBob 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the thinking this problem must be famous in order to be enclopedia worthy. I thought an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference of things unknown, a place to find something when you encounter something previously unknown to you. If all we ever list is common knowledge, why even have an encyclopedia? If people already know the facts, they are not going to come to you for the answers. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference source of uncommon knowledge, meaning, they come to you for the unknown, not the common knowledge or the famous knowledge. As far as being in a national publication, did you checkout the afore mentioned Pilots Lounge Issues #94? - SAO123 10:18am November 09

Well, an encyclopedia is a repository for established knowledge. You may not know about it, but it should be something that IS well known by somebody; to the point that it appears in other reliable sources. Encyclopedias are not the place for original research, there are other kinds venues for this. An encyclopedia may be the place where one FIRST goes to learn about something, but as a first resource, it is always an overview; a superficial study of the subject at hand. The encyclopedia should lead you to the in-depth studies and resources, and be well referenced to do so. That having all been said, I am still of the opinion that this particular logic problem is well enough known in external sources that it transcends the simply trivial; its solution is debated. The Straight Dope article cited above is more than a solution, it is part of an ongoing analysis of the problem. Which is why I vote keep. The subject is referencable in reliable, third party sources. --Jayron 32 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having just read the pages on Wiki: Notability of Science (proposed) and Notability of Math it would seem that under these general guidelines, the article could be considered notable. Consider it under items 2,8,9,10 or 11, under the science page, and Items 1 & 3 (item 2 does not apply) on the math page. Other articles have been posted on Experts.about.com, MadSci.org, and ask a scientist. Furthermore from Wiki: On Notability The primary notability criterion The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. Notability is something that is judged by the world at large, not by Wikipedia editors making personal judgements. If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable. Wikipedia simply reflects this judgement. There are other portions of this argument to long to print here, but also read subsections Notability is not fame nor importance, Notability is not verifiability and Notability is not subjective for further relevent guidance. - SAO123

Those science and math guidelines are, unfortunately, all off-point. This is not a scientific or mathematic principle, it's an example of basic physics (i.e. two objects moving in opposite directions and not applying force on each other don't act on each other.) It's not a significant new development, a new theory, a new explanation, etc. - it's a physics example in the form of a logic puzzle. The question I have is whether significant publications have taken notice of it and written about it (rather than just re-stating the riddle and the answer.) I haven't seen enough of that, hence my vote. --TheOtherBob 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Wiki: On Notability The scope of published works What constitutes a published work is specifically not limited by the notability criterion. A journal article, a newspaper or a magazine feature article, a television documentary, a book, a consumer report by a watchdog organization, or even a widely recognized Internet FAQ document all count as published works. I dont see how you can eliminate a pilot's journal article (he writes for a national published avaition journal), and several Physicists who write internet FAQ / Q & A columns as insignificant publications in addition to The Straight Dope editorial. - SAO123 11:58am Nov 9th

By the way, one small thing - you can more easily sign your post by adding the four tildes. Beyond that - I don't know what to tell you. I've looked at those publications, and draw the distinction I've drawn before. I in no way dispute that the publications and authors you're talking about could, in some cases, be a part of notability. But here I don't think there's enough about (rather than restating) the riddle. For reference, you can see that Jayron applied (I believe) the same analysis and came out the other way - he sees enough about the riddle. I don't. You disagree with my analysis on that, and that is absolutely fine - I think we just disagree and I think that's ok. --TheOtherBob 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears reasonably notable and worthwhile. "...has been showing up all over the Net", as the refs seem to show. Merge with Conveyor Belts on a Plane if desired. Herostratus 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admittedly, I was the person who nominated this article for deletion. The problem is not particularly noteworthy from a physics perspective, but seems to have gained a limited popularity on the web. Admittedly, the fact that I do not agree with the conclusions reached (despite them being echoed by the Straight Dope) may seem to give a limited credibility to its claim to be a paradox. However, there are many such problems that could be posed. Somewhere here somebody cited the problem being nominated for mythbusters - however on the same page somebody nominated a "Helicopter in an elevator" for Mythbuster's treatment - and I doubt too many people would be troubled about the question of whether an elevator when going up crashes into a model helicopter or if the helicopter hovers serenely in its original position with respect to the elevator. - JHill 17:43 GMT

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :::::By the way, one small thing - you can more easily sign your post by adding the four tildes.  Beyond that - I don't know what to tell you.  I've looked at those publications, and draw the distinction I've drawn before.  I in no way dispute that the publications and authors you're talking about could, in some cases, be a part of notability.  But here I don't think there's enough ''about'' (rather than restating) the riddle.  For reference, you can see that Jayron applied (I believe) the same analysis and came out the other way - he sees enough ''about'' the riddle.  I don't.  You disagree with my analysis on that, and that is absolutely fine - I think we just disagree and I think that's ok. --[[User:TheOtherBob|TheOtherBob]] 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Keep.''' Appears reasonably notable and worthwhile. "...has been showing up all over the Net", as the refs seem to show. Merge with Conveyor Belts on a Plane if desired. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete.''' Admittedly, I was the person who nominated this article for deletion. The problem is not particularly noteworthy from a physics perspective, but seems to have gained a limited popularity on the web. Admittedly, the fact that I do not agree with the conclusions reached (despite them being echoed by the Straight Dope) may seem to give a limited credibility to its claim to be a paradox. However, there are many such problems that could be posed. Somewhere here somebody cited the problem being nominated for mythbusters - however on the same page somebody nominated a "Helicopter in an elevator" for Mythbuster's treatment - and I doubt too many people would be troubled about the question of whether an elevator when going up crashes into a model helicopter or if the helicopter hovers serenely in its original position with respect to the elevator. - JHill 17:43 GMT