Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time-challenged

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. No prejudice towards redirection Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time-challenged

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

Page does not meet notability standards. Only one source in the article refers to the actual term "time-challenged" and appears to be a dictionary definition. If important, topics in this article could be merged with articles on time, Stonehenge, or others. Article cites opinions on time management that appear books that seem to be advice-type things for general readers, which is not encyclopedic. Corvus coronoides _talk 12:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: a search for sources on the terms yields many usages of the term in news articles, etc., but there is no coverage on what it means to be "time-challenged" beyond a dictionary definition. Corvus coronoides _talk 12:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep.~~ I found sources on usage of the word. Time-challenged has a particular spelling. It means having too little time. The article elaborates on that. Since it covers what it means to be time-challenged, without including my experience of it (it is not from Wasting time; it's a paranormal shortage of time), the article should be kept. although short. There might be books on the subject. Maybe somebody has time to find them. -Truexper (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted below, so I struck the second. Ansh6 6 6 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this may be a noteworthy topic, but as it stands it fails WP:OR enough to a point where I can't tell if it is salvageable or not. NW (Talk) 13:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has been recently reworked per this revision since the nomination. This incarnation feels like one part dictionary entry and several parts synthesized claims that are, perhaps, only loosely related to one another. Echoing NW above, the article feels like original research. The current sources discuss time/physics generally, but only a few seem to reference the topic specifically, and it's unclear whether these provide significant coverage of being time-challenged. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Microsoft Word's dictionary. That is significant coverage. Also, the the basic concept of Wikipedia is for “editors” to work on articles for the articles to improve over time. So, get editing. There isn't any rush to perfect the article. Since Time-challenged is a word about time shortage and not about laziness, it should have it's own article. Truexper (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIrst, a dictionary (letalone MS Word's dictionary) is not significant coverage-- it is just the opposite, routine coverage. Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The scope of this project is not to include article on every single word in the English language, particularly ones that are ill-defined. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is unquestionably original research: proposing that relativistic time dilation, Stonehenge's potential role as an astronomical observatory, and workaday schedule management concerns share a common theme is the essence of novel synthesis. Current content aside, I see no evidence that this term represents a concrete concept with significant, reliable coverage. Even if that were not the case, the current content here cannot be salvaged. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Synthesis, original research, etc. I do like the gratuitous Stonehenge mention, however. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was put in to justify the picture, which is nice but I don't think the builders of Stonehenge were time-challenged in any sense of the expression. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected the article to be about people with a poor "sense of time." Rather it is about, well, anything anyone wants the expression to mean, including not having enough time in a day to fulfil one's responsibilities among other meanings. This belongs in dictionary with each meaning numbered, not here by WP:Not a dictionary. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You voted twice. The article is about short hours being real and not an illusion. On notability, time in physics is an especially hot topic. (Reference: Is Time an Illusion? by Craig Callender in Scientific American address: www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion) On original research, it's a new article and Wikipedia was put on line to write articles collaboratively. If a lot of people are looking, better references could be found. That is why I added the stub template. --Truexper (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kitfoxxe (talk · contribs) made a comment above and supported deletion in a separate comment. This isn't "voting twice." On your rationale to keep, I'll just comment that articles are not kept even if they are on subjectively "hot" topics nor are they kept because they might be viewed by a lot of people, though there isn't much evidence that either is true in this situation. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: adjectives rarely make good encyclopedia topics, and this article is a collection of disconnected topics having a vague linkage of time measurement. Possibly useful to redirect to Time management as the primary topic of the phrase; some of the content might possibly go into Time perception. PamD 19:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hodge podge of different uses of a word. Pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Time management - at current, this article is WP:OR-filled and so nonsensical I can't figure out what it's actually about; my preferred redirect target is what I'd think of. Other possible redirect and merge targets mentioned above. Ansh6 6 6 18:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about short time. So many people experience it there's a word for it. There's nothing nonsensical about it. It's in Microsoft Word's dictionary. --Truexper (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Time perception instead? NW (Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...sure, whatever...I'm not going to waste time on this! Ansh6 6 6 00:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time-challenged is a word. The meaning of the term is “having too little time” and therefore “too busy.” The words “too little time” are about time. Time management is just an opinion on the phenomenon. I’m always careful not to have synthesis or original thought in an article. I’m simply explaining the subject to the reader. Truexper (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merger or redirect to time management seems reasonable and cheap. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (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.