Deletion of List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving

Comment: as  - basically a collection of more-or-less unrelated facts brought together in an essay.  While it may be |interesting, it isn't encyclopedic as a collection
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:INTERESTING)

Comment: per , , and so on, or userfy. I don't think it's relevant to Wikipedia-space either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:ASR)

Comment: It's certainly a notable topic, and encyclopedic, as expressed by other users above.  The ''Title'' needs re-wording, the ''tone'' could be less Kathy-chatty, and ''more cites'' could be added to verify the material.  I'm not convinced that this is .  It needs expert opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: While this could make an interesting magazine article, I have trouble seeing it as |notable encyclopedic topic. It is just a list of loosely connected forms of movement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Completely original research without any sources whatsoever supporting the premise of the article. It could perhaps wind up as Wikipedia space humor, but it is not a |verifiable article for articlespace. What on Earth does "reading Wikipedia" have to do with how fast we are moving through the universe? Nothing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I still don't see how the addition of those references (or the few subsequent "keep" !votes) address the major problems with this article, including the violations of  and specifically .  The individual statements are correct, no doubt, but they are tied together merely because they make up an |interesting collage of #INFO|information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:INTERESTING||WP:NOT)

Comment: This must be the strangest way of testing the limits of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but linking these various ways in which people can be said to be 'moving' is not encyclopaedic. It's linking unconnected things in a way which suggests |original research, and is a list of coincidences. I wouldn't object to this as a user page or sub-page but it is not suitable for an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: to something like List of ways a "stationary" human is moving or Imperceptible human motion. The |original research policy was designed to prevent editors from advancing controversial or novel positions, not to prevent editors from collecting information in novel ways which don't really advance a "position". If any "position" is being advanced by this article, it is one which I think no reasonable reader would disagree with. Therefore I believe the original research policy does not apply, and the content of this article should be kept. However, to |avoid self-references, the title should be changed. '''Merging''' this content into Motion (physics) may also be an acceptable solution
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:ASR)

Comment: even if all I can say is . It's not indiscriminate, it denotes reality and provides information, and '''''if''''' the author sources it (with footnotes, please) I'm game for keeping it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Wow.  This is the first time I've seen anything remotely like this outside of the context of the aforementioned Monty Python film.  I understand that the author does not consider this to be a joke, but I have to admit it's something that puts a smile on my face.  =)  Nonetheless, I don't think this is really something that fits into the scope of Wikipedia - the only argument I can give for a keeper is that it is |intriguing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING)