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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cycles[edit]

This list is an incongruent mix of topics from all corners of the Wikipedia and constitutes original research. At least no source is given, and I can't imagine one, that relates Electroencephalography, Sustainable industries, Double-slit experiment, and then some.

Please also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory.

Pjacobi 13:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems excessive to delete an entire list because of a disagreement with the inclusion of individual articles on the list. If someone wishes to make a study of cycles this is an excellent resource, and is exactly the sort of thing that Wiki provides so well. This complements List of calendars, List of dynamical systems and differential equations topics, and List of timelines. Such lists, by their nature, flirt with original research. It is useful to have read this Wikipedia:List guideline. The claim of original research in this case is dubious, as cyles is the research topic of The Foundation for the Study of Cycles, an organisation which has existed since 1941 and has been subject to articles in Science (journal), a reliable source, in 1994; and Ecology (journal), another reliable source, in 1943 - enough to justify notability according to current Wikipedia criteria. I would suggest that contentious items in the list are debated rather than this attempt to break a butterfly upon a wheel. SilkTork 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can take any random pair of articles from this list and have an overwhelming probability no research exists about their connection (modulo already neighbouring topics, which arent neighbours by their cycleness). The The Foundation for the Study of Cycles was also deleted (merged into the Edward R. Dewey article) and rightly so. It's one person's theory and undue weight all over the entire nest of cycle articles, most of which we already got rid of. --Pjacobi 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. User:Pjacobi's lack of ability to imagine something is not noteworthy. Here's something that can relate such things: the fact that two different cycles are both cycles may make it possible to apply the same mathematical techniques of time series analysis to both. For cycles that don't fit that pattern, other mathematical points of view may be shared in common by two cycles that may have nothing non-mathematical in common. Michael Hardy 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can prove my lack of ability by providing the missing references. --Pjacobi 12:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as inherently confused. Every optical or electrical article could in the sense mentioned above involve cycles. Given that the Schroedinger equation also involves wave phenomena, every material object in the universe would also be included. it's in the same class as would be a List of objects affected by Gravitation. DGG 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a clear (and uncontroversial) inclusion criteria criterion is given for this list and which does not make it redundant with Category:Waves and Category:Periodic phenomena. —Ruud 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please. You must have meant "a clear (and uncontroversial) inclusion criterion. Michael Hardy 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclusion in the list means that things are considered periodic in time. Waves are generally from a point of view of being periodic in space. Of course they will be overlap, and so the two should be linked. The periodic phenomena category is not well formed. It includes disasters that are not at all periodic and that category would be better replaced with another. I was attempting to set up a better category and that led to this attack on cycles material to try and keep me busy so that I could not do that. Also I would argue that a list may be more comprehensive than a category because it is not intrusive to articles. Ray Tomes 05:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • ...and it seems obscene to suggest a list could be redundant with a category. Categories are a woefully inferior alternative to lists. Michael Hardy 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't agree more when we would have been talking about, for example, List of Anuran families. I don't see what makes this particular list superior over a category (hierarchy). —Ruud 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that there can be an advantage in having a list and a category. The category intrudes into articles and so should be kept to strictly related material. The list can include a wider set of material than the category. However I do agree with several comments here that there are some items that do not belong here. That is not a good reason to delete, but to remove those items. Ray Tomes 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as virtually potentially infinite, completely unsourced - WP:ATT is policy - and in the absence of sources this constitutes original research. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This objection seems silly. By these creteria, we would have to delete the list of mathematics articles. That one is "potentially infinite" if this one is, and is "unsourced" if you mean the sources have to appear on the list page rather than on the many pages to which it links. Michael Hardy 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of mathematics articles seems to be in the wrong namespace, should be moved tp Portal: or Wikipedia: --Pjacobi 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry Michael, but this list contains topics which are totally unrelated except from the fact that that they may have anything to do with cycles. Also, for some of the things in there, like Belgian Congo, Organic farming, Secularity, Age of the Earth, Soundproofing, the connection with cycles is not even clear (yes, sound is a wave, which may be thought of as a cycle, but is soundproofing cyclical?). If this list survives, it should be greatly trimmed to topics very related to cycles, but even then, I doubt it would be useful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that the whole object of a list to include things that are related by a certain criteria? Wouldn't a list of anything have that same quality? Ray Tomes 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is cleaned up so that only the most relevant things are kept (not even everything related to cycles, rather only things which are very related, and justifiably related to cycles), then I may consider changing my opinion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a few items that should be removed as noted on the talk page. However that does not justify removal of the whole list. There is an established field of the study of cycles (not withstanding attempts by some people to stop that being known), and there is a good report by Edward R. Dewey about the fields in which cycles have been found. I recommend this paper [1] for anyone wanting to know about that. Ray Tomes 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Taking Ruud's comment, which seems to be at the heart of this discussion, that if an agreeable inclusion criterion can be written, would people's votes be changed to keep? SilkTork 08:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep wikipedias coverage of cyclic phenomena is woeful. After the last AfD on the topic wikipedia no longer has normal article on the topic, so we are reduced to this list. These things have a long cultural history of study. It is something that man has studied from day one. The entire hindu meta-physics is based around cycles in cycles, see Yuga. In China the I Ching is strongly linked to cycles. Cycles of sun and moon define our calendar and gave rise to likes of Stonehenge. This tradition has led to cycles being being a key part in early attempts to understand our world such as astrology, which in turn I suspect being part of the motivation of hard scientist to remove. It is a complete misrepresentation to link study of cycles to just Dewey, many other have studied cyclic phenomena for instance Lyall Watson devoted a most intriguing chapter of supernature to the diverse natural phenomena which follow the cycles of the sun and moon. And yes there is a good reason for Organic farming (actually Biodynamic agriculture might be more appropriate) to appear, as one of its key principals is planting in time with the moon. --Salix alba (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would disagree with keeping the Organic farming in, or perhaps even Biodynamic agriculture. If Biodynamic agriculture is allowed, then one should explain at that entry why it is in. In other words, if kept, this list should make the case for its existence at each entry, so that the list is actually informative rather than appearing to be an indiscriminate collection of unrelated information I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And when maintaining the list, one should not include all and everything related to cycles, but only the most relevant things. That is, one should pick and choose. So, tides and moon phases should be in, while Biodynamic agriculture should be out I think, as it is too unrelated. And for example, woman should be out, even though a woman has a monthly cycle. In short, adding things which have something to do with cycles, but not a lot, hurts the readability and information value of the whole thing I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm willing to take a chance that researchers may be hindered by not finding Belgian Congo, Mars Polar Lander and Sperm Whale all in one place. All these have been included since the creation of this list in August 2004, so obviously no one has cared about having this be a reasonable list ever. Yes, I know the common rationale that just because an article has always been crap doesn't mean it might not become crap a good entry someday, and therefore embarrassing trash should always be kept, but I disagree. Of course Organic farming belongs here. My research and interests make me wonder why Tooth decay, Taxes, and Da capo haven't been included yet. None of them are are types of bicycles either, so there's no reason to leave them out. Good grief... Tim Shuba 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. pom 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: It has been suggested that this article is original research. I will post two lists below to show that this is not so. Ray Tomes 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cycles in Humans and Nature: An Annotated Bibliography, by John T Burns, Magill Bibliographies, 1994 ISBN 0-8108-2831-6. This is a list of approximately 500-600 bibliographical references to cycles reports. Most of these reports are in the period 1970-1992 and are listed in some ~100 minor categories and 10 major ones, these being: Astrophysics, Atmospheric science, Biology, Botany, Economics, Geoscience, Medicine, Social Science, Zoology, Interdisciplinary. Ray Tomes 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Case for Cycles by Edward R. Dewey contains this list of subjects in which cycles have been found:

Table 1: DATA HAVING CYCLES NATURAL SCIENCE ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS Auroras, comets, meteor showers Planets, satellites, asteroids Rotation of galaxies Sunspots and other solar phenomena Variable stars BIOLOGY Bacteriology Abundance and activity of bacteria in human beings Botany Abundance of crops, plants, seeds, and algae Assimilation and photosynthesis Concentration of growth substances Electrical conductivity of sap Electrical excitability of mimosa Electrical potential of trees Fiber and individual organ growth Nectar production and sugar content Photoperiodicity Thickness of tree rings Entomology Abundance and activity of insects Feeding, hatching, and migration Pigment changes of certain insects Herpetology Abundance of snakes and amphibians Activity of lizards and salamanders Pigment changes in salamanders Ichthyology and Limnology Abundance of algae, plankton, and fish Egg cycle of various fish Migrations Invertebrate Zoology Abundance of various invertebrates Body temperature and metabolic rate Contraction waves in worms Germ cell maturation Light production and photic responses Migration of various invertebrates Surface color and pigment changes Mammalogy Abundance and activity of various mammals Fur production Physical cycles and activity-rest periods Variations in milk production Ornithology Abundance of various birds Metabolic activity Migration Wing beats of various birds CLIMATOLOGY Air movements and wind direction Barometric pressure and temperature Glacial movements Ozone content of the atmosphere Precipitation, including abnormalities Storm tracts GEOLOGY Earthquakes, geysers, volcanic eruptions Encrustations of archaeological artifacts Geologic epochs and periods Sedimentary deposits, varves, seiches Soil erosion Thickness of rock strata GEOPHYSICS (also see Climatology) Radio propagation quality Terrestrial magnetism HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGRAPHY Lake, river, and sea levels Ocean currents, temperature, and waves River flow and run-off Tides MEDICINE Abundance of disease organisms and parasitic worms Births and mortalities Blood pressure and blood-sugar content Body temperature and metabolism Electrical skin resistance Emotions and mental activity Endocrine and glandular secretions Epidemics and pandemics Fevers and after-shock Incidence of diseases and disorders Muscular, nervous, and sexual activity Plasma chemistry variations Psychiatric abnormalities Respiration and visceral activities Teeth sensitivity Veterinary diseases PHYSICS Activity of electrons and molecular vibrations Electromagnetic waves and flux Radio and sound waves SOCIAL SCIENCE ECONOMICS Advertising efficiency Agricultural production Building and real estate activity Commodity prices Financial data General business activity Imports, exports, trade activity Production, consumption, sales Purchasing power Transportation Wage earner activity SOCIOLOGY Civil and international war battles Creativity and inventiveness Crime Cultures and civilizations Fashion Human ability, excitability, output Insanity Intellectual interest Liberalism versus conservatism Marriages and births Military-political activity Periods of emotional excitement Population Religious and scientific activity Strikes and unemployment (list posted by Ray Tomes 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

• Delete -- It's a random assortment of things that only broadly can be considered "cycles." Kearnsdm 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was surprised when I took a look to see that the list actually is organized and not a complete disaster. My primary objection would be that topic is too ill-defined and would accumulate everything under the sun (including potentially woman as Oleg points out). My own answer to this would be to tighten up the introduction to the list to eliminate the kinds of things not currently listed. Further trimming is also highly recommended. As for the OR complaints... Lists have always felt slightly OR-ish to me (e.g. List of sexually active popes or List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_height_order). Is this list more OR-ish than that? In my opinion, no. --C S (Talk) 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looking at the "what links here", there seems to be no article that requires this list, and its generality seriously compromises keeping it for its own sake. As DGG points out, some of the looser inclusion arguments could lead to any number of items being added to the list. Inclusion criteria which would prevent this would seem to leave little need for this list, although sections might turn out to be useful somewhere. - David Oberst 08:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate collection of information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal. As the concern with the list itself is mainly that it is "indiscriminate", and as this discussion is not simply a majority vote, but a means to discover a solution, as indicated by Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion - would it be appropriate for us to be looking for a solution, such as the criterion mentioned above, for how best to compose this list? SilkTork 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most contentious section of the List appears to be the Physics cycles section, followed by the Organic cycles section. Leaving those two sections aside, what other items on the list do people object to? SilkTork 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.