Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mile Standards

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 18:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mile Standards

• Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

dispute is in mediation

Lots of original research from what is believed to be the same author. Most of it is irrelevant for the suggested title, copies of his contributions that is constantly being added to a number of other articles. This article is not needed. If there is anything of value here wrt. Mile Standards, it should be entered into Mile. -- Egil 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of books?

As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.

rktect 8/7/05 The votes for deletion are ultimately reviewed

by a competant administrator who will probably decide

what to do with the articles based on their overall content.

You have made a number of false statements about them

which a competant administrator will probably pick up.

You have claimed they are original research when the articles

cite sources that are in their fifth printing and

in some cases date back to classical sources.

You have claimed they are just lists when in fact they are tables

You have claimed they have no value or are covered elsewhere

which is far from the case because they are comparative tables

which restore the comparitive nature of having lists of unit

values on the same page that you removed by putting them

on separate pages plus adds the utility of putting them

in a table form for comparison

What amazes me is that the articles were not even complete before

you began demanding their deletion. What that tells me is that you

are afraid of discussing their content.

Egil, your massive edit changed the whole nature of

the Ancient Weights and Measures Page

You proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing

by culture rather than measure

On your own, over protest, you unilateraly did so

Then you decided to delete all reference to the original version

which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

What is up with the

writing line by line like this?

This text will wrap around

automatically based on window size.

I mean, it looks poetic and all,

but it's not quite the

Wikipedia standard.

Explodicle 22:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.

I seriously doubt it will be deleted as I can see that others

are now aware of your activities

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

I expect that despite the tone of irony you do understand

that having studied and familiarized yourself with an area

of research before you comment on it makes it less likely

that you will claim as original research a quotation from

the standard reference works.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read the deletion page it informs that the

votes are used as a guideline but that it is up to the judgement

of the administrator what action if any should be taken.

Particularly when the page is just being created and is still

being actively worked on every day it would be the normal

policy to keep it and wait to see how well it is ultimatly

polished and perfercted.

• Delete barring MASSIVE cleanup. Explodicle 16:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Explodicle. Ken 17:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-verifiable, confused beyond cleanuppability. And I add original research to the reasons. Taking massive amounts of data from a number of sources, letting the rest of the world figure out what piece of fact comes from which source, and rearranging these bits of information to reveal patterns previously undiscovered is (bad) original research. --DrTorstenHenning 17:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

No portion of this collection of source material is original research

All of it is directly relevant to the topic

All of it is easily verifiable

The cited material is widely available on the web and

discussed on the ancient weights and measures page

For those who object that it should be entered into the topic Mile

That topic appears to be concerned with the statute mile which did

not exist until it was redefined by statute in 1593.

The Mile standards under discussion here go back six millenia.

For those who object on the grounds that massive cleanup is required

the appropriate place to raise those issues would seem to be the discussion page

For those who are confused about definitions of the mile or are

experiencing cognative dissonance or would like to state what they find confusing

the discussion page would seem to be the appropriate place to do so.

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures

makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.

Mile standards are used by cultures going back to the Sumerians.

The documentation of this is not original research just a collection of facts

cited by both classical and contemporary experts.

Miles are always related to stadia and stadia are always related to degrees.

Miles are divided into stadia which are generally used as the sides of fields

They are further divided into ropes or cords, chains, rods, paces, fathoms, yards

all with primary agricultural or nautical measuring and navigational function

used to define large distances and areas.

At the level of the cubit,remen, foot, hand and palm the larger units are

corelated to the units used to measure bread and beer and other commercial

consumables. Those are two separate but related sytems.

Iron age standards are probably the best place to look at the consensus of opinion

about how to define the Mile because iron age standards are different than

copper age, bronze age or medieval standards in that their relation to the degree

is discussed in classical documents in considerably more detail.

Because this is the period when the Greek and Roman and for that matter

Phoenician empires are heavily engaged in trade with Europe and a period

when traders moved overland, up rivers and along coasts which they surveyed.

Many Greek, Roman and Phoenician geographers of the period have data

which they provide about the distances between places in Europe.

As the Greek and Roman traders moved into into Germany well in advance of

any conquering armies they carried with them standards of measure for

commerce and agriculture.

These Greek and Roman units are already well established in the popular literature

as opposed to obscure technical publications written in dead languages

for copper and iron age units so they are much easier to document

and have much more accessible web sources.

As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several

decimals of mm, iron age standards are not precise to decimal mm

or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.

For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference

to sharing a standard (as with Ptolomy;s geography) which was cited on the

discussion page for ancient weights and measures, there are long term

investigations of the units involved and the results

are now considered basic historical fact.

In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective

to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",

"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer

histories that have been explored in the literature.

Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological

period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities

and differances much clearer

The objection that these studies are original research is invalid

as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and

in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with

translations given in English

• Delete, original research. Nandesuka 16:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research. Ken 15:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC) Striking out my second vote, just to be clear... Ken ^talk 20:39, August 9, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.