Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redefinition of the Metre in 1983


 * 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   merge to Metre. The consensus is that the subject does not warrant an article in its own right, but that it does deserve a mention in the Metre article. Please note that the article was redirected to Redefinition of the metre in 1983. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At the Deletion Review, I ackowledged that my original close was incorrect.

The result of the discussion should have been No concensus --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Redefinition of the Metre in 1983

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

POV fork of Speed of light, created for material removed from there by consensus. Previously PRODed but prod tag removed without reason. title non-notable in its own right, material belongs at Speed of light or Metre JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is in poor shape because it is an insufficiently detailed treatment of its subject. It is intended to be a detailed discussion of the 1983 redefinition of the metre, the reasons for that redefinition, the practical implementation of the new methodology, and the ramifications both practical and philosophical. That goal is not a POV fork, but an amplification of the discussion in the article Speed of light. Unfortunately, this article has simply been transferred from that article, which had a rather superficial treatment of the topic, and made into a full article with only a few modifications. The decision to make here is whether this article is ready to stand on its own and be more fully developed by normal editing, or deleted and resubmitted in a more complete form later on. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had begun an article along these lines at this link. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is simply not enough to say on the subject for it to merit its own article: it is not a subject in its own right, and is already treated in metre. Physchim62 (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was enough of a subject in its own right to prompt this 5 full page article at the time:
 * As well as this 2 page precursory coverage a fortnight earlier:
 * And all of these journal articles and book chapters:
 * }
 * It's remained enough of a subject since to warrant this conference paper some years later:
 * A quick search for sources turns up the original papers on the science underpinning this from the Boulder Group, as cited in the references section of a summary written by David R. Lide of NIST in 2002:
 * As well as this:
 * Lide is, like others, is specifically addressing the laser measurement of the speed of light and the definition and redefinition of the metre:
 * Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - a thematic multi-focus, interdisciplinary and clear presentation, in this overall-view to be referenced from different angles/lemmas. Help amplifying and keep! Gerhardvalentin (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to the metre article. I think John is wrong to say that this is a POV fork as the material was not removed for POV reasons, rather the reason was that the speed of light article was becoming too long and the consensus was that we could do without the excessive detail about the redefinition of the metre. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * a POV fork arise when a new article is created for content removed from another article by consensus, as happened at Speed of light. In addition the title clearly indicates a sub-topic of metre, or not even that - "definition on the metre" might be that, and even that would not merit its own article. I agree though that this content would have been better considered for inclusion in Metre rather than a new article (though I suspect as it stands there is too much detailed content for that too).-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Blackburne has a misreading of the meaning of POV fork: such a fork is an attempt to duck a controversy by starting a new article to present an alternative viewpoint. The POV concept does not refer to an article intended (as is this one) to expand upon a sub-topic. Such articles are common on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument that this is too detailed for the Speed of Light article seems valid. It isn't as clear that it couldn't be in the metre article, but that article is a broad overview of a number of items, and including all this material may be over-weighting this particular aspect, so a separate article seems like a good choice. Let this one improve, and sometime in the future, revisit whether this should continue as a stand-alone or should be merged in metre.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - terrible, but also terribly notable. Intended.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Metre. That article is not very crowded right now, so I can't see why this material must be kept at a separate article rather than there. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of merging the article with Metre should be shelved for the moment. Ideally this article on the 1983 decision should evolve into something more interesting and more extensive as editors are given the time to amend it. After this evolution it will be clearer whether a merge would benefit the Metre article, or perhaps constitute too large a digression. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is the reverse of our normal procedure: we should only have a seperate article if it becomes obvious that the metre article cannot support a reasonably complete discussion of the matter. If people think there is material to be merged (I don't), then it should be merged, but there is no reason for this article to exist. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge relevant content in the metre article. It certainly does not warrant it's own article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I started this article to remove unnecessary detail from the Speed of light article. I am not sure that the metre article will benefit from this level of detail being added to it. It is a specialist subject representing an important change in the way that length was regarded in metrology an deserves its own article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the 1983 redefinition of the metre and not any of the many other redefinitions of SI units over the ages. This is a topic which should be discussed in the unit article, not in a separate article. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This particular definition removed a physical constant from the list of basic standards and placed it outside the reach of measurement in that system of units. There is a philosophical issue here about reduction of the number of basic units. There is also some subtlety in understanding replacement of the unit of length with a defined speed and the unit of time. These matters would take the Metre article rather far afield. A decision on merge at this moment is premature, but already the article looks too long and too far ranging to include in Metre. Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the last time, no the redefinition did not do such thing. It fixed the value of that constant (or "set the scale" between time and space). It's not "outside of the reach of measurement", it's just pointless to measure (you already know the answer of what your measurement should be, if you read any number other than 299,792,458 m/s, you need to recalibrate either your ruler or your clock or both), just as it is pointless to measure the refractive index of vacuum. "Setting the refractive index of vacuum to 1" did not "remove a physical constant from the list of basic standards", whatever that phrase is suppposed to mean. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So did the 1948 redefinition of the ampere which removed the magnetic permeability of vacuum, and so on, and so forth. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the objection to having this article? We would still expect to get an appropriate level of discussion in the unit articles but this article could give more detail.  What is the problem with that? It allows WP to contain even more information in a well-structured way. Those that do not like it or are not interested need not edit it, or even look at it.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It gives undue weight to the topic. We don't need articles on specific redefinitions of unit, that stuff should be covered in the unit's article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misapplying the notion of undue weight. The notion of undue weight applies to points of view, and is an issue relating to neutrality in disputes.  It is not a notion dealing in how much detail Wikipedia might cover a technical subject.  In fact, we have quite the opposite notion.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, and we have no cost and space limitations that cause us to think about what verifiable information we have to leave out of articles in order to keep publication costs down. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Headbomb. If there was a significant controversy over the 1983 redefinition of the metre, it should be dealt with in section of the metre article: to create a separate article suggests that there is significant material which cannot be covered in the metre article, and consensus is that this is not the case. It is indeed a WP:POVFORK to suggest that the 1983 redefinition was any more significant than the other redefinitions of units which occur from time to time. The 1983 redefinition is less significant than the 1960 redefinition (which switched the length of a bar for a wavelength of light), and is far less significant than the planned redefinition of the kilogram (described at length in that article). Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misapplying the notion of POV forking. A "POV fork" requires a point of view, which is absent here, this being an simple event in the history of science, not a viewpoint.  Having a summary style article for a sub-topic does not make a subject "more significant".  Indeed, most of the articles in Wikipedia are on things that most people would regard as insignificant.  Nor is "controversy" required for an article.  There are plenty of articles on asteroids, species of beetle, towns in the United States, and so forth that are neither controversies nor widely regarded as significant by the world.  This is an encyclopaedia.  We don't deal in significance and scandalworthiness.  We deal in human knowledge.  If there's properly documented, peer reviewed, and acknowledged human knowledge to be had, we have it.  If there's enough of it for a topic or a sub-topic to support a full article, then we allow a full article.  Arguments that you, personally, think redefinitions to be insignificant should be taken up with the people in the world at large who have covered them in depth, such Tom Wilkie and David R. Lide cited above (and many others), not with Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into metre. The second sentence in the current form of the article ("...explores the background and ramifications of this change in definition at greater length than seems desirable in the article Speed of light") makes it appear very much like an unacceptable content fork. Article forking should happen as an article grows too large, not as a means of solving disagreements between editors. However, this article appears to have been created in large part to contain information that one editor wants to add in but which consensus is clearly against - such article forking is not an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors. If the information is merged first into the metre article, then the usual and proper of process of content forking can take place. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is clearly notable and requires a detailed explanation.  More detailed than appropriate for the metre or speed of light article.  Hence the need for this article.  --Michael C. Price talk 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Didn't some folks go around and around on similar arguments at Speed of light, culminating in an [arbitration case?] Or is this a separate and distinct issue than the scientific issues then at issue? Should there be separate articles on every redefinition of the candela, the ohm, the ampere, etc? Edison (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is part of the aftermath of the ARBCOM case yes. There should not be separate articles on any redefinition of any units, because they are are all equally notable/unotable. The 1983 redefinition of the meter is no more special than any other redefinition of any other units. The place to treat these redefinitions are in the relevant unit's article (case in point, the Kilogram's possible future redefinition), not on their own articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not all constants are equally notable. The speed of light has much greater public visibility and interest than, say, &mu;0. --Michael C. Price talk 06:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the general public, the density of water is even more important than c, and yet there's no article specifically about the older definitions of the litre and the imperial gallon. A. di M. (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * More important, but not as interesting. --Michael C. Price talk 11:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of which arguments are based upon fallacy. This is an encyclopaedia that is still being written.  What we don't have is not an indicator of anything to do with a topic; and what is personally interesting is not how we decide what goes in and what does not.  What the world has found interesting, enough to properly document in in depth, is our guide.  Basing Wikipedia's article inclusion and exclusion criteria upon what a random group of Wikipedia editors personally thought to be interesting at any one time would lead to chaos.  Basing Wikipedia's article inclusion and exclusion criterion upon fame, similarly, leads to stuff that readers would come to an encyclopaedia for precisely because it isn't famous (such as asteroids, species of beetles, and, yes, the detailed and documented scientific history and advances in research that led to an SI unit being redefined) being left out.  Our sole guide is, and has to be, how extensively something is documented in the reliable literature of the world.  If the world at large has extensive documentation of the redefinition of the metre and fails to document the redefinition of the ampere (not that I believe that to be actually true &mdash; I suspect that people here haven't checked thoroughly enough.), then that's what Wikipedia must reflect, because reflecting human knowledge as it actually is, is our job, however uneven or lop-sided we may think the world to be.  We're not here to correct lop-sidedness or unevenness in human knowledge, merely to collect and systematize human knowledge as it stands.  Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A wiser approach? As the article develops further it will be very clear whether it has no content, or overlapping content, or merge-able content. In fact, that discussion can begin right now on the Talk page of that article; discussion about the present content and what could be added or omitted or changed or merged. There is no violation of general WP policy in the abstract to justify deletion of this article. Just follow normal Talk page hashing out of such details by technically inclined editors, and let the chips fall where they may. Brews ohare (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The change itself has received sufficient media attention to be notable of itself. TimothyRias (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I started this article it was intended to allow detailed discussion of this topic that, in my opinion, was not suitable for the Speed of light or even the Metre articles. I also hoped to move some of the detailed discussion and disagreement from the Speed of light article on this subject to a more appropriate place where those interested could discus the issues involved. It was not my intention to start a POV fork and in particular it was not my intention to create an article in which an alternative or personal POV could be presented, or in which the Speed of light arbcom decision on tendentious editing could be circumvented.  See the article talk page for more discussion of this subject.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article seems to meet these criteria. Now that the article exists non-productive discussion has ended. --Michael C. Price talk 09:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: This article was begun as a repository for contentious material about the 1983 redefinition of the metre that did not belong in the Speed of light article. The long, long argument over treatment of that subject in the Speed of light article, with a small minority arguing against a strong consensus, led to an arbitration that resulted in severe sanctions on two editors. The contention over that subject was not reflected in real world literature on that subject; it was peculiar to Wikipedia. One of those editors is now free of his topic ban and has resumed that argument, joined by a small minority. This article, if it continues to exist as a separate article, will be the new battleground. The 1983 redefinition of the metre belongs in the Metre article. Every prior redefinition of the metre received extensive coverage in scientific journals, just like the 1983 redefinition. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, not a place to review journal articles on a subject. An appropriate, encyclopedic treatment of the 1983 redefinition, like all the prior redefinitions, belongs in the article on the Metre, and not elsewhere. Any material that is too long to fit in the Metre article does not belong elsewhere in Wikipedia, which treats subjects in encyclopedic summary style. Like all Wikipedia articles, the Metre article should refer interested readers to other sources that discuss the 1983 redefinition, and other aspects of the metre, in greater depth. While the first author of this article did not intend it to be a POV fork from the Metre article, it inevitably will be one, or at least some editors will try to make it one. My opinion would still be that discussion of the 1983 redefinition belongs only the Metre article even if there was not a history of contention among Wikipedians (but not in the real world) over the topic.—Finell 12:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem:
 * POV fork from the Metre article, it inevitably will be one, or at least some editors will try to make it one.
 * In other words you're prejudging the issue, rather then being prepared to see how it develops. --Michael C. Price talk 12:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you actually read Summary style. It directly contradicts your argument that sub-topics should be somehow outside of the encyclopaedia.  I also suggest that you read our Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia policy.  You appear to be applying the reasoning that is applied by editors of paper encyclopaedias, to exclude knowledge of extensively documented subjects on space/size grounds.  We don't have publication size limitations.  If "every prior redefinition of the metre received extensive coverage in scientific journals", then (presuming that you can back that up by citing those journals) you've just made a cogent argument for every such event in the history of science warranting its own article, and metre having lots of summary-style sub-articles.  Good!  We should do that, then, and accurately reflect the extent and depth of human knowledge on the subject.  Readers come to encyclopaedias to learn about obscure but extensively documented scientific subjects.  It's our job to make an encyclopaedia that serves them. The fact that you think yourselves incapable of using the usual means of dispute resolution to stop editors from making articles on science subjects into battlegrounds is nothing to do with AFD, and we don't use AFD as a means for clubbing other editors over the head.  If you've got a problem at arbitration, solve it at arbitration.  The focus at AFD is the article, and what sources have to say about a subject.  You've just stated that multiple independent reliable sources document these subjects directly, and in depth.  Correct application of deletion policy is that we therefore have an article.  The logic is that simple.  Disputes over actually writing it belong elsewhere, and AFD is not the means for stopping or resolving those disputes.  AFD is not cleanup, nor is it a big hammer.  Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD is a perfectly reasonable venue to use when you want to rectify the weird idiosyncracies such as material being on its own article when it should be merged into its natural location. This should be in meter, not on its own, just like all other redefinitions of units (which BTW, all have plethoras of sources as well, since redefining units has a lot of impact in science and elsewhere), like the future redefinition of the kilogram is treated in kilogram, and not on its own. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, this is merely an expansion of a point made in both the speed of light article and the metre article; that logic alone dictates it needs its own article, even if length didn't already require it. By your logic we shouldn't have subsection articles at all. --Michael C. Price talk 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Logic alone would suggest that it doesn't need an article of its own, given that no other redefinition has its own article. Logic would suggest that the topic could be adequately dealt with in the article on the unit itself (in this case, metre, which is hardly bursting at the seams with detail for the moment). There is simply not enough we can say, in an encyclopedic manner, about this topic for it to justify its own article: maybe New Scientist got five pages out of it, but it covered many more topics in that space than the simple redefinition of the metre.
 * And, Uncle G, a little bit of common sense would have lead you to discover that this topic, and the disruptive editing of one editor in particular, has already been the subject of an ArbCom case, that the article comes to AfD less than a month after that disruptive editor restarted editing speed of light (after a ban from all physics-related topics which ArbCom, in its infinite "wisdom", decided to cut short instead of make permanent), and so that maybe your two-bit pontificating was better off elsewhere. Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article seems to meet these criteria. Now that the article exists non-productive discussion has ended. --Michael C. Price talk 09:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: This article was begun as a repository for contentious material about the 1983 redefinition of the metre that did not belong in the Speed of light article. The long, long argument over treatment of that subject in the Speed of light article, with a small minority arguing against a strong consensus, led to an arbitration that resulted in severe sanctions on two editors. The contention over that subject was not reflected in real world literature on that subject; it was peculiar to Wikipedia. One of those editors is now free of his topic ban and has resumed that argument, joined by a small minority. This article, if it continues to exist as a separate article, will be the new battleground. The 1983 redefinition of the metre belongs in the Metre article. Every prior redefinition of the metre received extensive coverage in scientific journals, just like the 1983 redefinition. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, not a place to review journal articles on a subject. An appropriate, encyclopedic treatment of the 1983 redefinition, like all the prior redefinitions, belongs in the article on the Metre, and not elsewhere. Any material that is too long to fit in the Metre article does not belong elsewhere in Wikipedia, which treats subjects in encyclopedic summary style. Like all Wikipedia articles, the Metre article should refer interested readers to other sources that discuss the 1983 redefinition, and other aspects of the metre, in greater depth. While the first author of this article did not intend it to be a POV fork from the Metre article, it inevitably will be one, or at least some editors will try to make it one. My opinion would still be that discussion of the 1983 redefinition belongs only the Metre article even if there was not a history of contention among Wikipedians (but not in the real world) over the topic.—Finell 12:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem:
 * POV fork from the Metre article, it inevitably will be one, or at least some editors will try to make it one.
 * In other words you're prejudging the issue, rather then being prepared to see how it develops. --Michael C. Price talk 12:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you actually read Summary style. It directly contradicts your argument that sub-topics should be somehow outside of the encyclopaedia.  I also suggest that you read our Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia policy.  You appear to be applying the reasoning that is applied by editors of paper encyclopaedias, to exclude knowledge of extensively documented subjects on space/size grounds.  We don't have publication size limitations.  If "every prior redefinition of the metre received extensive coverage in scientific journals", then (presuming that you can back that up by citing those journals) you've just made a cogent argument for every such event in the history of science warranting its own article, and metre having lots of summary-style sub-articles.  Good!  We should do that, then, and accurately reflect the extent and depth of human knowledge on the subject.  Readers come to encyclopaedias to learn about obscure but extensively documented scientific subjects.  It's our job to make an encyclopaedia that serves them. The fact that you think yourselves incapable of using the usual means of dispute resolution to stop editors from making articles on science subjects into battlegrounds is nothing to do with AFD, and we don't use AFD as a means for clubbing other editors over the head.  If you've got a problem at arbitration, solve it at arbitration.  The focus at AFD is the article, and what sources have to say about a subject.  You've just stated that multiple independent reliable sources document these subjects directly, and in depth.  Correct application of deletion policy is that we therefore have an article.  The logic is that simple.  Disputes over actually writing it belong elsewhere, and AFD is not the means for stopping or resolving those disputes.  AFD is not cleanup, nor is it a big hammer.  Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD is a perfectly reasonable venue to use when you want to rectify the weird idiosyncracies such as material being on its own article when it should be merged into its natural location. This should be in meter, not on its own, just like all other redefinitions of units (which BTW, all have plethoras of sources as well, since redefining units has a lot of impact in science and elsewhere), like the future redefinition of the kilogram is treated in kilogram, and not on its own. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, this is merely an expansion of a point made in both the speed of light article and the metre article; that logic alone dictates it needs its own article, even if length didn't already require it. By your logic we shouldn't have subsection articles at all. --Michael C. Price talk 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Logic alone would suggest that it doesn't need an article of its own, given that no other redefinition has its own article. Logic would suggest that the topic could be adequately dealt with in the article on the unit itself (in this case, metre, which is hardly bursting at the seams with detail for the moment). There is simply not enough we can say, in an encyclopedic manner, about this topic for it to justify its own article: maybe New Scientist got five pages out of it, but it covered many more topics in that space than the simple redefinition of the metre.
 * And, Uncle G, a little bit of common sense would have lead you to discover that this topic, and the disruptive editing of one editor in particular, has already been the subject of an ArbCom case, that the article comes to AfD less than a month after that disruptive editor restarted editing speed of light (after a ban from all physics-related topics which ArbCom, in its infinite "wisdom", decided to cut short instead of make permanent), and so that maybe your two-bit pontificating was better off elsewhere. Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Physchim62, New Scientist did run a 5 page article on the subject. Title = "Time to remeasure the metre", which gives some indication of what it was all about. :-) --Michael C. Price talk 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Michael, that is it's title: have you actually read the artcle? Physchim62 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Covers pretty much the same material as here (except the last section, which you see I'm inclined to remove). --Michael C. Price talk 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Friendly request. Let's focus purely on the article in question and not restart disputes from the past like the ArbCom case when it is not relevant in the current situation. If anyone is behaving in a disruptive way right now that is an issue to deal with now, otherwise let's just shut up about "disruptive editors" who are not actually behaving in a disruptive way. Count Iblis (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. The past is past. Let's improve this article and have an end of it all. --Michael C. Price talk 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just replace the "article" with  and be done with it? Physchim62 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of subsection articles? --Michael C. Price talk 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have actually, believe it or not! My experience is that subsection articles grow out of subsections that become too long: they should not be confused with WP:POVFORKs, which exist solely to promote a point of view for which an editor could not obtain consensus in the relevant main article. Metre already has a discussion of the 1983 redefinition, which could certainly be improved by a reference to the New Scientist article and a better distinction between definition and realization, and which is ready and waiting for constructive edits. Physchim62 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The POV fork issue has been dealt with already a number of time, but I guess you didn't hear that? And the metre already has this detail in, since this article already appears as a subsection article in it. --Michael C. Price talk 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment (in reply to both Count Iblis and Michael C. Price). Despite it's title the article was created as a fork of Speed of light, to contain content removed from there by consensus. If you look at the article now you'll see that it is indeed a fork of speed of light, mostly about the speed of light with particularly a long section at the end consisting of fringe speculation and interpretation, of precisely the sort that Brews ohare has repeatedly tried to insert at Speed of light, both before and since the ArbCom case - content based on his POV. So a POV fork.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasons for removal included the complaints of too much detail and that the speed of light article was too large. So, a subsection article is entirely appropriate.  As for the last section, it has been deleted. --Michael C. Price talk 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict):


 * Friendly reply: An important preliminary issue, before several editors devote substantial time and effort working on this article, is to decide whether this article should exist as a separate article. The 1983 redefinition of the metre occurred 27 years ago, and was preceded by years extensive work and published studies. It is was an important advance in metrology and an important development in the history of the metre and the SI. In the world of genuine scientific and technical scholarship, it has been uncontroversial throughout those 27 years. Until this article was created yesterday (30 July), in a momentary lapse of judgment by one of Wikipedia's better physics editors, Wikipedia articles gave appropriate encyclopedic treatment to the 1983 redefinition in the appropriate articles, including Speed of light among others. There have been no recent developments in the real world that warrant expanded treatment, either in a separate article or in the articles where the subject is already discussed. The 5-page article in New Scientist, to which a few editors refer, was a popular account of this development that was published in 1983, when it was news to the general public. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, cover in a few printed pages subjects to which entire textbooks are devoted. That is what encyclopedias do, and in doing so perform a valuable public service. Wikipedia's treatment of the 1983 redefinition is adequately treated in existing Wikipedia articles (although there may be some room for genuine improvement), does not warrant substantial expansion in the existing articles (although some material might profitably be added), and most definitely does not justify a separate article. Whatever appropriate revisions might be made to the existing articles do not include the radical change in emphasis or point of view that a few editors are advocating.


 * So why all the fuss about this subject here and now? The reason has nothing to do with treatment of the subject in real world scholarship, and everything to do with the history of this issue in Wikipedia. That is the only reason that I recite this history, which I lived through. In an episode that is unique to Wikipedia (that is, one that does not mirror the real world), over 2 years ago (NOTE: I have not checked the dates, so my approximations may be off by a several months) a well-meaning editor with an obsessive personality (Brews ohare) could not get his mind around the idea that the speed of light could be a defined term in one system of measurement (although not others) and that this made the speed of light artificial or tautological, even though all systems of measurement are based on defined values. He argued and argued and argued relentlessly for over a year, against a substantial majority (i.e., consensus) of physicists who patiently explained the science to him, that the Speed of light article should substantially change its treatment of the 1983 redefinition to something very different from that subject's treatment in real world literature; he would not listen to reason and tirelessly kept coming up with new arguments. This argument dominated the talk page. Later, this well-meaning editor was joined by a mean-spirited physics troll, with a long history of sanctions for disruptive behavior, who argued that the 1983 redefinition of the metre was a conspiracy by "establishment" scientists to "sweep under the rug" the "fact" that modern physics in general and relativity in particular is just a big lie (a point of view that this individual also publishes on crank science web sites). Along the way, this duo picked up a few supporters, some of whom are not well educated in physics. (These individuals will doubtlessly disagree with my characterizations.) This disruption of the Speed of light article and talk page, especially the mean-spirited disruption by the troll, led to an arbitration. The arbitrators' decision unanimously topic banned the two protagonists from physics for one year and imposed behavioral probation. That decision ended the controversy over this issue. (These individuals disagree with the arbitrators' decision.)


 * As a result of his productive editing of articles in other areas (which I have praised and supported), the well-meaning obsessive editor's one-year physics topic ban was commuted by the arbitrators before it expired. He returned to the the Speed of light article and talk page, and he picked up from where he left off. Apparently in an effort to get this argument off the Speed of light talk page, Martin Hogbin, an editor for whom I have the highest respect, created Redefinition of the Metre in 1983. That is the only reason it was created. The 1983 redefinition has not warranted a separate article in the 27 years since it occurred (or throughout Wikipedia's entire existence until yesterday), does not have one in other general encyclopedias, and should not have one in Wikipedia now. The resumed argument on the Speed of light talk page was an annoyance, but there was an obvious solution: refuse to join in the argument, since all the points raised now were discussed and resolved over a year ago, and nothing that is new in substance has been raised. Creation of this article was a mistake, and this is the place to correct that mistake.—Finell 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Finell, I recall the problem, and I supported the ban for the same reason you did. .... But we have to put history behind us.  We can't argue, Brews was wrong then, so he must be wrong now. What specific criticism of the current article do you have?  Are there any cranky anti-relativity statements in it?  Is it misleading?  Arguing that the article didn't exist before is not a reason for saying it shouldn't exist now - new articles get created all the time, in case you hadn't noticed. :-)  Finally, of course the 1983 redefinition was uncontroversial in the world of scholarship - let's keep it that way here by explaining it in such painful detail that even a moron could understand. --Michael C. Price talk 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I already commented on the new article's talk page. Most of the article's content, when I looked at it, was about the speed of light itself, which belongs only in the Speed of light article (if anywhere). Whatever content is actually about the 1983 redefinition will fit nicely in the Metre article, to the extent it is not already there and is a worthwhile addition, and that is where it belongs, together with all the prior redefinitions. That leaves no content for the new article, which is why the new article should not exist (or vice versa). I would love to put history behind us. History remained behind us while Brews was topic banned; no one perceived a need for this new article then. Now Brews is back, and the old history is thrust upon us. This has nothing to do with animus against Brews: I defended him in 2 or 3 post-arbitration enforcement proceedings, where I thought the topic ban was being interpreted against him unfairly (although his poor judgment in injecting physics into pure math articles and telling an opponent about his topic ban brought the proceedings on); I opposed shortening Brews' topic ban, and the Speed of light talk page is now reliving history because the ban was lifted. The new article was a good editor's bad idea of how to restore peace at Talk:Speed of light; it did not solve that problem, but did create a new organizational mess of misplaced and duplicative content. The mistake should be corrected, and the mess cleaned up, by deleting the new article and moving any worthwhile new content to the articles where it belongs. And then we can get back to improving Speed of light, provided we do not allow ourselves to be drawn into old arguments, and instead focus on that article's real needs. This whole exercise is a big waste of editors' time and effort, with organization detriment rather than content improvement for the encyclopedia overall.—Finell 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Finell's logic applies much better to the trouble on the climate change articles. There you really have a problem caused by quite a few editors who can't accept that FOX NEWS is wrong and the peer reviewd scientific articles are correct about climate change. They are writing/contributing to articles on sceptics and invoking the BLP rules to defend POV edits on climate change. Yet, they are still tolerated on Wikipedia, and that is not going to change. Currently ArbCom is looking into this issue. But note that the Global Warming article is a featured article (it has been for a several years) despite a problem that Finell should agree is more than a thousand times worse than that posed by Brews. All this focus on one editor in this case is thus not warranted, it is contraproductive. Count Iblis (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsurprisingly given the history above the deleted section has been replaced by one as dubious in the current version, as the article continues to be used by Brews as a platform for his fringe views, which have little to do with the definition of the metre.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This ancient history has nothing to do with the present AfD other than the blindness and irritability it brings along with its inapplicable and inaccurate sagas. It's time to look at matters based upon what is before us, not to see a replay of imagined events. Brews ohare (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a topic of potential importance to readers of both metre and speed of light; a separate article may be the best way of packaging the information to make it easily accessible. Abtract (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to metre. This (very good) material explains how the metre is currently defined; it belongs in the article on the unit. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Smerge (Selectively merge) to Metre. An article on a unit of measurement should have summary coverage issues and controversies regarding of revisions, but does not need standalone articles about each revision. An encyclopedia article on the Ohm, for instance, does not need a separate article with minute descriptions of the many ways a column of mercury at a particular temperature was measured by Lord Rayleigh and his constant companion Mrs Sidgwick in the 1880's.. Their 1880's work has 944 references at Google Books and has more justification for a stand-alone article than this issue, but does not tickle some Wikipedia editor's particular fancy in the way that this 1983 unit revision apparently does. Any unit could spawn numerous pointless subarticles delving into excess detail on its revisions, thereby giving undue weight to arcane issues which fascinate a few Wikipedia editors. The candela comes from the candle, which was a defined physical candle burning at a certain mass per hour, but with perhaps 30% difference between vendors, replaced by carefully chosen light bulbs, then by black body model, then by whatever. The variation of standard candles would have as much justification for a stand alone article, (24000 results 1880-1900) as this 1983 meter revision, but an article about it would seem as unencyclopedic. Edison (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak merge to Metre. I fail to see why this information should be split off from the article metre. Instead, by a merger the metre article would hugely benefit in providing usable background information without referring the reader to a separate article, and metre is also not too long to justify a split. Proper organizing wrt. section ordering and naming should do it. Nageh (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2010 (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.