Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical space

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Physical space

This article has waited more than 18 months for cleanup and NPOVing, but I'll judge nobody volunteered, because the article is a dead end and should be deleted. It's somewhere between original research and an essay, free from knowledge about physics and mathematics. Citing a comedian in the intro sentence very much sets the context for this article. --Pjacobi 20:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

• There might be an article on something called physical space, however, this isn't, and never will be, it. Delete. humblefool® 21:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't understand why this perfectly good article on an encyclopedic topic has been listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is far from ideally written, but it is an honest attempt at defining an obviously encyclopedic concept. Back to Cleanup, I say. Xoloz 04:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We are not in the business of honoring honest attempts if the result is unencyclopedic and misleading. --Pjacobi 15:04, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Delete - most of this article is patent nonsense. For example, this quote,

"The concept of a 'curved space' is somewhat logically flawed because space can be defined by the distance between two objects, which is usually by definition always given as a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships.

However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual space."

totally ignores the work of Riemann, Lobachevsky, Einstein, and all the research since them on curved spacetimes. It is a piece of bad luck in one way that you can envision most 2-spaces pretty well (exception: the Klein bottle ) by imbedding them in 3-space. It does help elementary teaching, but it gives the false impression that curved geometries can "always" be regarded as artifacts of selecting a lower dimensional space out of a higher one. That approach has not been useful. I once asked a mathematician how many dimensions of Euclidean space you would have to use to imbed a curved 4 dimensional space and I do not remember the answer, but it was large - I believe 8 or more. So it "helps" you to think of curved 3-surfaces as imbedded in Euclidean 3-space (so long as you do not try to detour across the unoccupied part of that 3-space) but it does not help to envision 3 and 4 dimensional curved spaces stuck in higher-dimensional flat spaces.

I realize that this is supposed to be an elementary discussion and evidently from the "save" votes it has made some sense to some people, but Wikipedia ought to provide a jumping off place for the more serious student, and the idea of using a straight line to connect two points on a 2-sphere and use it as the shortest path is very misleading. The shortest path is the arc of a great circle. Spherical triangles have interior angles that almost never total to two right angles, and you can find that in high school level texts on solid geometry. So it should be reasonable to expect readers of Wikipedia to understand that on the surface of a sphere, the "straight lines" are arcs of great circles, and in higher-dimensional spaces the geodesics will not be related to any Euclidean metric. Pdn 17:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • I don't find this "misleading," only incomplete and a bit rough. Wikis are all about honest attempts. I can't imagine a good article arising ex nihilo Xoloz 08:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What can I do but repeat: It is very misleading to speak of a straight line cutting between two points on a sphere (as a chord) when one is describing the curved geometry of the sphere. You are jumping out of the space you are talking about, and in 3 and 4 dimensions this may require adjoining many more. The point of studying curves spaces and spacetimes is to describe ways to measure that curvature and deal with its physical effects without adjoining all sorts of additional dimensions so we can feel happier thinking of the curved space as a subset of a larger flat space. Pdn 03:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. This topic is encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (changed to Abstain). The article in its current state is seriously wrong; I can't understand why anybody would call it a "perfectly good article". I do not see what kind of article can be written about physical space, but if there is, starting all over again is much simpler than cleaning up the article (which would leave two or three sentences). -- Jitse Niesen 11:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the article is so radically wrong, give it a major rewrite. Throwing our hands up and saying the entire thing must be deleted seems a bit drastic. What bits are so horrible anyway? The Euclidean approximation, the curvature of space-time? I think the author loses the plot around the last three paragraphs, but this problem can be solved by deleting or rewriting the las6t three paragraphs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't want to rewrite it, because I do not know what to write about physical space. Apparently, nobody else wanted to rewrite it for more than a year. Of course, if somebody were to rewrite it and show me that there is a decent article, I'll happily change my vote, but if not, it's better to start all over again. The only part of the article that is good is the second paragraph (In everyday experience ... 180 degrees). The next two paragraphs are passable, I don't know what the section titled Space-time wants to say, the start of the section titled Curved space-time is misleading in several aspects ("[time and space] are the same thing", "[flat spacetime] is a strange intermediate state"), and the part from "The concept of a 'curved space' is logically flawed" is wrong (all IMHO, of course). -- Jitse Niesen 12:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. So you're saying the article has content problems but you can't or won't rewrite it. Then stick a cleanup template on it. Content problems are not valid reasons for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I am saying that the article is not encyclopaedic, which is a valid reason for deletion. I even think that physical space is not an encyclopaedic topic, but I am not so certain about that. -- Jitse Niesen 19:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I must say I find the idea that the concepts of space, space-time, relativity and whatnot are not encyclopedic...well, rather novel. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree Tony. I don't know enough about the article to rewrite it, but I do know enough from college physics and history of science classes to declare almost absolutely that the topic is a cornerstone of all the physical sciences. A stub is better than nothing here. Xoloz 02:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I did not say that space is not an encyclopaedic topic, what I said is that I think that physical space is not an encyclopaedic topic. After the 14 June rewrite by Hiding, I still do not like the article very much for the reasons given by Splash below, but I am not so keen anymore to see it deleted, so I'm changing my vote to abstain. However, I do think that the article should be moved to space (what does the adjective physical mean in physical space?). The current article at space can then either be moved to space (disambiguation) or merged in. Jitse Niesen 12:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Hiding 19:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've had a go at a clean up, but I'm not sure it's any better off. Hiding 22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Wonderful Wikification, Hiding! Xoloz 08:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I vote Keep. Its true that this article is not the model of encyclopaedic, but it is hardly terrible. There are a lot of far more prejudicial/un-encyclopaedic articles out there. There seems to be little reason to delete this. Tombride 21:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article is quite good imo, just a little on the abstract side. needs a bit of clearing up and expanding, wkifiying, sunja 22:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Seems fine as an article topic. There's always room for improvement, but I don't believe delete is at all justified. — RJH 16:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think anyone's saying space is not an encyclopaedic topic, but this article is definitely not 'perfectly good'; it's seriously misleading in places and has quite an anti-relativity slant. In addition, articles available via Space discuss the relevant issues in a neutral and encyclopaedic way. This article is pretty much a POV fork, gives us nothing that we don't already have, and has major factual problems, so it should be deleted. Worldtraveller 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What you're describing above appears to me to be, at best, a case for a redirect to Space. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, wouldn't see any harm in that - as long as the content is not merged anywhere, that often seems to be the implication of redirect votes. Worldtraveller 18:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or, if that fails, redirect to space. William M. Connolley 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. This is redundent with space. --EMS | Talk 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've had a further go if anyone wants to have a look and see if it changes their mind? Hiding 21:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, could people not remove the vfd template please. Hiding 21:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This includes such loopy phrases as: "physical space can be characterized (in western ideology) by being three-dimensional" - I'll check with my friends with Eastern ideologies, but I reckon they'd go with 3D space too. Also, that entire para is filled with gibberish. The other sections amount to little more than brief summaries of areas that have their own articles, and this article contributes nothing to any of them - so there's not even a case for Merge. Save the physical space on Wikipedia's servers. -Splash 23:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There is no main article on the psychology of space, so that section would best be saved somewhere. I also think it is useful to have a page on space which is similar to that of Time because I for one don't understand half of what is written on all the other very complicated space pages. I would have gone further and moved the space (philosophy) and space (astronomy) across, but felt that was too important a change to pull willy nilly. Hiding 06:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'll grant that the first two sentences of the 'Psychology of Space' could be kept, and merged into psychology, but that's all. All the rest of that section is a wordy list to other articles to which it really doens't contribute anything. Moreover, there is already an article on Space (physics) which is stubby but adequate and it links to Space (philosophy) which this article appears wish it was. -Splash 11:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm. By that definition, any article which only offers up an overview of a topic and provides pointers to better understanding might as well be deleted then. Obviously that section is a wordy list of links, outlining their relevance to the topic, and is meant to serve as a pointer to readers. Also note that one of those links will be orphaned if this page is deleted. As for the article on Space (physics), I don't think that serves any purpose that this page would. Nowhere on wikipedia is an overview of the subject of physical space given, all the information seems to be herded into seperate pools, where it stagnates. I couldn't find an area which addressed the use of space in terms of buildings and farmning, given an overview of the situation, which is something I believe is encyclopaedic. Hiding 12:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. In terms of the specific topics you mention, architecture links to space syntax, and farming lists a whole bunch of methods which are implicitly means of using space in farming. Of course, the space where Splash lives, space where Splash is sitting and space where Splash keeps his books articles could be merged into this one - along with every other object, philosophy, activity...that impinges on space. This article has no standalone value since everything it wishes it had said is already dealt with, implcitly or explicitly elsewhere. The Wikipedia should beware articles that attempt to say that there is a topic of standalone encylopaedic value when plainly all its value is held elsewhere - particulaly when the existence of the article implies that there is a topic such as 'physical space' that has such encyclopaedic value. As for the space (physics) page - this page starts off trying cackhandedly to deal with space in a physics sense but doesn't have a clue - see the first comment above by PDN. If those separate pools you mention are stagnating, then they need bringing to life - but not by linkages from inane articles like this. Should just say that I don't seek a fight here, just a robust discussion. -Splash 16:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The trouble I have is that, okay, the information is held elsewhere, but it's in so many different places that it's impossible to find. I mean, Spatial syntax is just gobbledygook to me. Yet if I look up an article on spce, if that info was presented in a clear manner, I might learn something. I'll be honest here, my formal education finished when I was sixteen, and that's over half a life time ago, so I am a layman in every sense, and it just makes sense to me to have a standalone article which draws all the meanings of space together, even if it points outwards for further information. I'd broadly agree that maybe it would be better located at space rather than physical space, but that's another discussion. As for PDN's comments, I'm sorry, but he lost me at spacetime. I don't even understand the gist of it, as words like geodisc and the like make no sense to me, and I can't quite grasp why a straight line isn't an arc of a circle. Yes, I think it's great that wikipedia be a tool for the serious student, but it should also be a tool for those with less ability in areas who could learn more if they weren't treated like they were idiots for not grasping a concept they were taught maybe up to fifty years ago. However, I'm also a little at sea in the physics part of the page, as well, and it would be great if someone with an academic understanding of the topic could write a layman's guide on space that didn't offend their sensibilities and made sense to a layman, because nothing on Space (physics) makes sense to me. Like I say, I'd rather see the space page be something better than a disambiguation page, more like the time page, which seems to offer up nothing new. As for linking to space where Splash is sitting and so on, I doubt those pages would get through a VfD, and no, it probably isn't wise to cover every aspect of space, but surely some effort should be made to present information to readers in a manner better that a disambig when all the articles the disambig links to are related. Oh, and there's a link in that psychology part that'll be orphaned if it's deleted, so best keep an eye on that, and I'm well aware of when I'm in a fight as to a friendly chat, but ta. Hiding 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Ok, I see what you mean. But my concern is that, with this kind of article on the Wikipedia, what readers will take away is the impression that there is a subject, physical space, which is of sufficient concern to people to justify its own article - standing alone from all the other entries on space-related topics. If people wanted to find out what the Wiki knows about 'space', they've got a search function that'll tell them everything it finds without creating misleading impressions (proviso: as long as this page isn't allowed to turn up!). What should probably happen is that the space page is worked on considerably — but only as a pedogogically expanded disambig page — and this one still deleted. The time article makes my skin crawl marginally less than this article as a result - at least it doesn't refer to a non-existent topic. Incidentally, in trying to find an equivalent article, e.g. physical time, I found Time: physical and eternal, which looks highly suspect to me, which is a pity since it might contain some useful contributions. Maybe. -Splash 20:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It might be best to replace the current article with a stub and eventually it might expand into a decent article. IMHO its a lot easier to add to an article than it is to cleanup an article. Falphin 01:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Whatever actually needs to be said about space is already in space (physics), space (philosophy) and space (mathematics). The purpose of even having a separate article called physical space is obscure. Bambaiah 12:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is mostly nonsense. The parts that aren't nonsense aren't worth keeping. It's unsourced. The inclusionists say it must be kept but haven't demonstrated that it's possible to make an encyclopedic article out of this mess. Even if it is, it would be better to start from scratch. Quale 20:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep or merge This article, as presently written, has real content. Space (mathmetics) is vacuous, and ought to be a category; Space (physics) is a stub, which spends most of its time noting that statements about space in general tend to be disputed. Space (philosophy) is two reasonable paragraphs. The correct response to an article which needs fixing is to do it, to ask for help, or to leave it alone, not VfD. Septentrionalis 01:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment But if space (mathematics) is vacuous, you wouldn't have recommended making it a category. It's not great, I'll admit, but it does the job, and is technically accurate to boot. Space (physics) only mentions disputation in a single word — there genuinely are different ways of doing maths/physics with space. An article is not in need of fixing if everything that would go in it is already handled perfectly well elsewhere - the correct response is to expand those pages up to standard - not to create another poor attempt at them. EDIT: I'm not a deletionist, incidentally, I think that many things that appear wacky will have value in the end, but that is no excuse for allowing the rubbish to pile up.-Splash 01:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, howsabout this. I've mocked up on my user page what the space page could look like if all stubby space disambigs and info from physical space were merged into one. If that went on Space, with the computer and cultural uses moved to a Space (disambiguation) page, we could then delete physical space and have our cake and eat it, no? Hiding 21:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• That persuades me — good idea. (Although personally, I'd unwikify amount, or we'll finish up on a VfD for that :-) )-Splash 21:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• That's a really good job. I have some minor comments, but they are on the content of your rewrite and have nothing to do with this vfd. So I'll reserve it for the time when this goes into the right space :-). Bambaiah 05:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, that's done then. Should Physical space then be a redirect to preserve page history, or deleted? And what happens with Space (astronomy, space (physics), space (philosophy) and space (mathematics), do they become redirects to Space or CfDs? Hiding 09:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• These other space pages should become redirects under this new scheme I think. But on the vfd under discussion, my opinion remains unchanged: delete. Bambaiah 08:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the material has been merged into space, doesn't the gfdl licence require the page is kept to preserve the history? If so, I vote keep, if not I vote delete. Hiding 15:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That does seem to be what has happened on other similar VfDs as a result of the GFDL, which is a pity, although I suppose there's no too much harm in an unlikely-to-be-searched-for redirect lying around on this basis. -Splash 15:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.