Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye movement in ordinary tasks


 * 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 delete.  Thanks for your contributions, Mr Hunziker, but we are a general encyclopedia, and thus not the best place to summarise one's research.  Sandstein  21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Eye movement in ordinary tasks

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

Prod declined by author; escalating to next deletion step. Strange history - author originally cited his/her own work, then changed it. Too specific of an article title/subject with little supporting text - article consists of pictures and explanations. Probably WP:COPYVIO of new cited paper, but hard to tell as it's in German. Tan  |   39  21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I plan to add other examples to add to this article. I had already added one (eye movements in walking), but this was deleted without apparent reason. I originally planned to add articles on eye-movements in language reading, in stress situations, in in chess - translated and adapted from my publication Hans-Werner Hunziker, (2006) Im Auge des Lesers: foveale und periphere Wahrnehmung - vom Buchstabieren zur Lesefreude [In the eye of the reader: foveal and peripheral perception - from letter recognition to the joy of reading] Transmedia Stäubli Verlag Zürich 2006 ISBN 978-3-7266-0068-6. Now I do not know if this is against Wikipedia standards even if I cite the original sources on which the articles in my book are based. Maybe someone can help me with this. Thanks.--Hans-Werner34 (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not against foreign languages, but the salient points of this article are in German and aren't really of use to an English reader. Perhaps an article from the German Wikipedia needs to be translated? Frank  |  talk  22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, short and insufficient context. WillOakland (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading that I still do not understand what the scope of this article is. Is it merely what you personally have written on this narrow subject? WillOakland (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:06, 20 May 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.