Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-touch gestures

Add links
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 redirect to Multi-touch#Multi-touch gestures. Consensus is to merge, which appears to have been done already.  Sandstein  04:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-touch gestures

[edit]
Multi-touch gestures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. WP is not a how-to guide. This is really annoying. A newbie editor comes along, creates and article on a subject of about zero requirement to be in an encyclopaedia, creates an article about himself, and then never comes back. Seasoned editors then have to sort it out. it is frustrating. There is a huge amount of work that needs doing and editors spend their time fighting fires rather than getting stuff done. Also, any attempt to protect the almost four million articles and shape WP into something that is to be proud of is thwarted by the active conservapedians who block any change from the status quo. It is great to have an information source that is free of editorial bias and with low barriers to entry, but there is an urgent need to have restrictions because of the necessary bureaucratic complexities and the need to see the BIGGER picture. Sorry about that. Had to get it off my chest. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To put this in perspective, the "newbie" stuff in this case happened more than four years ago, and the editor had then been registered for 16 months. Insidious vandalism and incessant tag-team POV pushing are far more frustrating.  --Lambiam 00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) What? 2) This is not a how to, it's an encyclopedic description of gestures in a way that best expresses them (videos and iconic language). That the topic is notable is shown by the already existing article; both should be merged, not deleted.Diego (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has been edited by 19 registered users and from 14 different IPs, and has more than quadrupled in size since the original creator dropped out, so there is a large group responsible for its current state. This is not really a how-to article, any more than our article on Morse code, but one should hope for more in an encyclopedic article, such as an exposition of the history and the reception, instead of a kind of catalogue. So this is indeed not a quality article, but I think that can, in principle, be repaired. Not being interested in this topic I've skipped magazine articles about it, but I think I've seen several come by that were right on topic, and so I have a strong suspicion the topic is notable.  --Lambiam 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 00:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to multi-touch. Multi-touch is definitely an encyclopedic topic as e.g. this Google scholar search shows, but the "gestures" article is purely a how-to for two particular devices, and is not encyclopedically written. The non-gesture article on the same subject is in much better shape. Possibly some of the content here could be merged into the other article, but only if it is substantially cut back. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to multi-touch. This is a clearly notable topic, although I see no reason to have two articles. The gesture videos are cute, but it's still a question as to whether they're within encyclopedic scope. There may be very little solid content that actually needs merging.
I'm also concerned about the WP:BITEy nature of the nomination. This is quite uncalled for. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What???? That is rubbish! An editor created an account back in 2007, did some edits over the space of a few hours and never came back. And you are saying my comments are WP:BITEy?? Also, please note that the little rant that I made when nominating the article is a general observation. I challenge you to find instances of hostility or any sort of bad behaviour towards newbies. Andy, you have to get over whatever it is that is causing your stupid surely attitude towards me. Did I step on your toes at some point in the past? Did I get an article of yours deleted? Whatever it is GET OVER IT! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I at least (see below) was in fact referring to the "little rant" you made in the nomination. WP:BITE isn't quite accurate, since you're right that the creator isn't a newbie. But I felt like your rant was slightly hostile, although not quite uncivil. Without knowing the history between you and Andy, I'm not sure if what you said here (as opposed to in the nom) was justified or not, and so I won't comment on any feud the two of you might have. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not having a feud with Andy, but I don't like his hostility. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm fine with Alan's 'delete' rant as it doesn't violate CIVIL or BITE. The author was not a newcomer when they wote the article. If WP were a public library, it would be one which allowed users to place books rather than merely read them, and to return the books they read with some additional sheets containing their additions. I'm fine with that concept. I'd rather be upset about the kind of visitors playing games of Paintball in there: vandals.
IMO, both are annoying, but "frustrating"? I'd say only vandals and parsistent edit-warriors are. 217.251.156.107 (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Merge and Do Not Delete. I found Multi-touch gestures via google when I searched for "touch gestures" and it was near the top of the list, and it was exactly what I was looking for. Having seen references to multi-touch only after looking at this "delete discussion page" (AND NOWHERE TO BE SEEN IN THE GOOGLE RESULTS), I can see that THAT page is NOT what I was looking for. It is a different subject in the same way that "baking pans" is different than "bakery". I was brought to this discussion page because I couldn't believe that Multi-touch gestures was flagged for deletion with no justification given. Of course, I've always thought that self appointed "editors" had more time on their hands than optimal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.8 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I have now started merging particularly useful content, and after some of the sources are migrated over, I think it's a good idea to simply redirect the title to Multitouch. The line between describing multitouch technology and the gestures common to it is very thin to nonexistent, and the root article really should be more comprehensive anyway. If necessary, we might fork the table and further information in to a List of multi-touch gestures article, but for now what is there is good and verifiable. Steven Walling • talk 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multi-touch_gestures&oldid=1144333118"