Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motor control in humans


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn as Userfy. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Motor control in humans

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

The prod was contested. This is original research. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge any relevant information into the Motor control article (with appropriate citations) and delete this one. Amazinglarry (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: merge & delete isn't an option. If merged, the article must be turned into a redirect or kept in order to comply with out licensing agreements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - I would say the subject is definitely notable. So there are two questions: is there salvageable content? and where is the best place to cover the material?  To the former question, I would say yes.  The article is essay-like but does contain usable info as well.  To the later I would say either a stand alone article or as part of the main motor control article is fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a highly notable topic which seems not at all original. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Joe, this isn't original research, it's just a not very great summary of the research. The editor didn't come up with any of this, it's all out there in sources, two of which are cited. We can take some of this to help improve the also woefully lacking Motor control article. I'd like to see less of these overzealous deletions when another option has been proposed; you should have at least discussed it on the talk page as you knew that at least two experienced editors were interested in the page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'd like to see less of these overzealous deletions when another option has been proposed; you should have at least discussed it on the talk page as you knew that at least two experienced editors were interested in the page." That really depends on someone's opinion and if I'm able to, I'll go by my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my opinion is that your opinion is wrong, and I've explained why. You don't need to go for the nuclear option so quickly, Colonel Warden deprodded and I added tags and a merge notice, and neither of us are n00bs, so you could have held your finger off the trigger and discussed it first, per WP:BEFORE. I know sometimes the red mist descends in a bout of deletion, but it doesn't have to be that way. Power.corrupts details the correct approach to imperfect articles below. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kind of hard for me to think highly of WP:BEFORE when it is constantly twisted around. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article has many issues, is too essay-like and too unfocused.  But it is certainly not original research.  The article creator has less than 10 edits.  His user page indicates that he is a last year undergrad at a tech institution.  All signs of good faith, but also unfamiliarity with Wikipedia.  The preferred action here is to try to recruit the guy, not WP:BITE him.  First, he should familiarize himself with existing articles - starting at Category:Motor control - maybe he can improve some of those articles of which many at present seem to be in a bad shape.  Second, I have a feeling that his real interests (I'm assuming a male here) lie within the field of Computational motor control - this is presently a redlink, but seems to be highly notable.  A pruned version of this article might fit under that heading.  A basic search in Wikipeia suggests that he would first have to consult Cognitive science, Brain, perhaps Computational neuroethology, perhaps Cerebellum and Kurt Thoroughman plus++.  So I would say userfy and a friendly notice encouraging him to contribute.  Although I'm way outside my comfort zone (and short on time), I would be willing to take that task and try to coach him. The tendency around here seems to boot everything that is less than perfect for deletion, sort of a Pavlovian response mechanism - it's not particularly constructive nor nuanced, it disregards WP:IMPERFECT and more importantly the very fundamental way in which Wikipedia grows and exists in the first place. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not delete it.  If everybody can agree on this outcome, I would ask Joe to withdraw, I will then userfy etc. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2009 (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.