Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual units of measurement

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 keep. WjBscribe 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual units of measurement

While interesting, this article is a mishmash of measurements made up in school one day, arbitrary wacky pairings of SI prefixes with unconventional base units, and antiquated measures like the grave and metric inch that are not "unusual" at all except that nobody uses them anymore. Some aren't "unusual" at all: I've got a completely serious, boring software engineering metrics book on my desk that uses the KLOC extensively. The very definition of "unusual" is POV: what makes a unit "unusual?" And most important of all, almost none of these entries have multiple independent reliable sources confirming their notability (and Usenet and webcomics are not notable sources); the few that do already have articles (smoot, jiffy, etc.) or are discussed in the proper context ("Gillettes" at Laser, Grace Hopper's comparisons at Grace Hopper, etc.) This article is just a dumping ground for units of dubious notability. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing because an overwhelming consensus believes it can be salvaged and cleaned up, but please find a way to deal with the inherent POV issues and sourcing. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:~~

Delete as a pointless list - but if it must be kept, delete all the made up in school units and keep only those in the Directory of Units of Measurement. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of unusual units of measurement; it could possibly be made less unwieldy, but most is sourced, encyclopedic and often interesting, if not particulary useful. List of humorous units of measurement has less to recommend it, however - a major cleanup and more sources needed. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a classic case of an article that needs editing not deletion. It's interesting and it is obviously dealing with the unusual - where it is explicit that there may not be the same amount of references as one expects for meter and kilogram. Please, for the other article, start another AFD nomination. patsw 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Like I said, I nominated it for deletion because "unusual" is inherently subjective (as is "humorous"; which is why I nominated them together). How would you define an objective criteria for what to include? And, as I said, everything here that is referenced and notable already has a separate article or is mentioned in the proper context. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Subjective and unsubstantiable. Valrith 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may not be possible to draw the precise line between what is unusual and what is not, most of the units in this interesting list are indeed unusual, in the sense that their use is limited to a narrow circle of people or to a particular moment in time. Others, such as "storeys" are in wide public use, but have no formal status. This is a worthwhile reference. Denni ^talk 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps rename to "List of non-Imperial, non-metric units of measurement". It seems that the article's title is subjective but to be honest I don't see that the content is. --Charlene 05:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least has some references and other meritable qualities, not the least of which is being interesting and informative. A much weaker keep for the second nom ("List of humorous..."), not as much worthwhile material, but some entries are informative. Both articles need substantial cleanup and editing/cutting (more so for "List of humorous..."), but neither deserve deletion because they don't really violate WP policy. --Seattle Skier (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While some of the units noted do have their own article, this is far from the norm, and making individual articles would make every single one of them into a stub. I have previously done major editing to remove items that violate WP policies. As for teh arbitary wacky SI-imperial pairings, they may well be arbitary, but that doesn't change teh fact that they exist and are in real use. I concede that "unusual" may be POV, but I am at a loss for a concise term that would catch the essence of such a list (non-Imperial non-SI doesn't work - too long, and ignores traditional units from country xyz). Rhialto 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-standard units of measurement" maybe? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But within their field, some of those measurements are the standard unit in use. Scoville units for pepper hotness spring to mind here. Rhialto 11:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll withdraw since there's an overwhelming consensus to keep, but "unusual" still has to go. Maybe it could be reformed into a list of "domain-specific" units? Krimpet (talk/review) 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, typical example of "not a paper encyclopedia", but please require sourcing for every entry in the list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up; per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) --Mhking 13:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep very useful article, don't know that I like the second (humorous) one.. make that a sep afd Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to resist the temptation to close this under the snowball clause. The article is far from perfect, but it cites many sources, and discusses items of real scientific interest. I'd read it before, and I was surprised to see it on this list. YechielMan 19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fascinating article that should be improved by better sources. --Bduke 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's similar in spirit to List of chemical compounds with unusual names (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names). Fg2 07:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unusual units, but edit out thoise which are unreferenced, in-jokes, or "made up in school one day" but lacking sources which satisfy WP:ATT. "Delete "Humorous" units, but a few of them such as the "phon" have been in textbooks and journal articles and should be moved to "unusual" units. Edison 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I split out the humorous units from the original strange units (as it was then called) article, it was because the article was much too long, so re-merging the two would be a bad idea. There is a definite conceptual difference between the two articles though. Unusual units is meant to list those that see real use, and should be considered reasonably scientific. Humorous units is meant to list those units written with the specific intent of making a joke. As such, it is not scientific at all. But it does document a certain brand of humour, and articles that document humour certainly do have a place in wikipedia. Rhialto 22:10, 26 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.