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. Many various rationales presented here for deletion: synthesis, original research, non-notable, not covered in sources as a set, and unverified. Consensus is clear for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (angle)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can't find reliable sources discussing the list entries as a group or set. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally concurring with Newslinger, and Winged Blades of Godric in this series of articles and their deletion discussions, }, I fail to see what use at all this 'article' can have on Wikipedia. If it is supposed to be humorours like his 'science' antics at RfA, then it has failed miserably - Wikipedia is not a joke site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know there are many of these lists, but this one seems particularly silly. For length, mass, and possibly other basic units it makes sense to categorise them in terms of orders of magnitude, but angles are different: there is only an indefinite regress in one direction, and the "article" only manages one example (the Planck angle, whatever that is). The rest really is just fluff. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. This really does seem to be a completely unencyclopedic article of no value whatsoever. It is pure WP:SYNTH in that while angles of course exist, there is no reliable secondary source - indeed no overall source at all - to justify the topic as an article subject. I do hope this was not an attempt at humour: if it was, it was utterly inappropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncited, unverified WP:OR. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom and per my statement at other AfDs on articles of same vein. ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lepricavark (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think the delete case is persuasive on this one. I could see an interesting essay being written about ever-shrinking angles — that's the sort of organizational theme that Isaac Asimov might have used in a short nonfiction piece, like shorter-and-shorter lengths or higher-and-higher temperatures. But that wouldn't be a Wikipedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(shivers) I think I hear SNOW DELETE on this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to angle under an "Examples" section. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 October 2018 (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.