Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch


 * 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 Cardinal direction. I had to take a moment on this one, since the "article is a how-to guide" argument is reasonable. Then came the argument that the subject is covered in encyclopedias. Well, I looked at the sources and the books are not really "encyclopedias" in the traditional sense [that means: reference works which inform more than instruct] but rather educational books for youngsters which have "encyclopedia" in the title. Still the argument is not entirely without merit, since coverage in published works like this does contribute significantly to notability. I have read from the discussion that content from here has been merged and remains valid. I am calling this a redirect so that the content is in one place, and not split over two articles. Anyone interested in viewing the original article here may still use the history record which will remain online. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Compass direction using a watch

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

100% of this article is covered by WP:NOT. Should be in WikiHow. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Several of us have now merged to cardinal direction. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nominator said it; article is just a "How to." ◄   Zahakiel   ►  00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ♥ Shapiros10 Wuz  Here ♥ 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete is definitely WP:NOT.  --Deadly&forall;ssassin 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - archetype of what Wikipedia is not. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT a how-to guide. Also, article is very septentriocentric - the method suggested doesn't work in the Southern Hemisphere. Grutness...wha?  01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a guide, no encyclopaedic content. Guest9999 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTHOWTO guide. --Pmedema (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is certainly encyclopedic content because this information is contained in multiple encyclopedias and I have cited one such. All that is needed is more clean-up and maybe a merger with an article such as Direction finding, Navigation, Compass or North.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't argue with that. I personally added the method to relative direction long ago. But this is way too much information. My wording is:"Face the sun and check the compass. In the northern hemisphere, before noon, the compass points to your left hand. After noon, it points to your right. The opposite is true of the southern hemisphere." To give instructions to someone who knows left from right, and doesn't have a compass, all you need to say is "The sun in the sky and the hour hand of a 24-hour clock face both revolve over 24 hours. If you hold such a watch horizontal and point the hour hand at the sun, south will be at 24-o'clock in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, north follows the hour hand if 24-o'clock is oriented towards the sun. For more common 12-hour clocks, use 12-o'clock instead and bisect the angle formed by the hour hand. This method does not work near the equator, and errors are introduced by local time zones."Still a bit cumbersome, but a whole article isn't needed. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep An entry in a children's encyclopedia's provides a compelling reason to keep: a topic from a specialized encyclopedia. Wikipedia aims at being a general encyclopedia and a collection of specialized encyclopedias. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A children's encyclopedia is specialized. You need to clarify your argument. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I cited the The Children's Encyclopedia because I read this myself with great pleasure when I was young. It is not at all specialised and covers a great many topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This definitely meets WP:NOTHOWTO Gary King ( talk )  19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of that policy is that Wikipedia should not read like an instruction manual or text book. It is mainly a matter of presentation.  The essential facts are worthy of coverage here since they are clearly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point; I agree that some of the content can be salvaged to another article if and when this article is deleted. Gary King ( talk )  21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged contents to cardinal direction. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is currently written in a how-to-style. However, I think the mere fact that this method works is interestingly enough to have it's own article, independent from the fact wether this method is employed or not. Therefore I don't think this is really an how-to-article. E.g., I can image that this article will be expanded with a proof that this method works, i.e. an explanation. --Cyfal (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question/Comment - So, you're saying that if a howto article is accurate it should be kept despite WP:NOT? The problem is not that the article isn't true, or proven to work, but that this isn't the purpose of the encyclopedia.  Another editor has already merged the information into what seems to be a more appropriate place, so the method's description here won't be lost, but I don't think it needs a separate article as well.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that a howto article should be kept if it's accurate. I'm saying that I find the fact that and why this method works interesting enough for an own article. I've added now an explanation to the article, hope that makes it more clear that this is not just a howto. --Cyfal (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's only an essay, but I do note that "It's interesting" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Interest is good, so far as it goes, but doesn't really contribute to the encyclopedic content, and explanations of why a process works would make a better article about the science than the activity. I think the merger into "Cardinal direction," as done above, covers all that needs to be covered here. ◄   Zahakiel   ►  00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - It seems there are not many supporters of an own article. I have therefore enlarged the cardinal direction section so that no informations will be lost in case the article will be deleted. --Cyfal (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment - if you do, please also note in that article that it only works that way in the Northern Hemisphere (for the S.H. you need to substitute "left' with "right" and "north" with "south" in the description of how to find the correct direction) Grutness...wha?  00:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I did so in both articles, ??? (Although the explanation is first given for the Northern Hemisphere and then only a short sentence for the Southern one.) If I missed your point, please simply correct me by updating the articles. Best regards, --Cyfal (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah - you did indeed. You must've added that after I initially viewed the article currently up for deletion. Thanks. Normally you'd say in the Southern Hemisphere, BTW (although it sounds less logical when you think about it). Grutness...wha?  23:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've changed the on into in now (such things are still tricky for a non-native speaker... thank you.) --Cyfal (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for the record, my conviction is that this nomination for deletion and the subsequent affirmations demonstrate an abuse of policy. These actions do not reflect the spirit of wikipedia, WP:COMMONSENSE, nor the guiding question of What would Jimbo do? (WWJD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 (talk • contribs)
 * Unfortunately, it's hard to get an unbiased perspective on "abuse of power" by a democratic committee with no oversight. Most of us see this article only as a textbook case of one particular rule, HOWTO. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. This method is simple enough to fit as a section of a more appropriate article. The essential information itself will be preserved; it's just a matter of where and how it is presented. As an analogy, I think it is good that we don't have an article on compass direction using a compass But we can certainly mention how the direction can be found using a compass in articles such as compass and cardinal direction. --Itub (talk) 10:33, 29 April 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.