Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian 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 delete. Nakon 03:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian units of measurement[edit]

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

There are no "Australian units of measurement". A previous editor removed the copied list of English units, so now the article has no content which is not already much better covered in the (quite good) article Metrication in Australia. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that there's nothing to say about Australian units of measure is absurd. It has a distinct history for its use of imperial and then SI units - see History of Measurement in Australia. Before then, the aboriginal peoples had their own ways of reckoning - see Tangkic Orders of Time, for example. And now, Australia has evolved its own uniquely complex and idiosyncratic system for its most important commodity — beer! Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the reference you cite as "Tangkic Orders of Time" says the following: "Like other Australian hunter-gatherers, the Tangkic people had no quantitative measurement system for either space or time." That sounds to me like "There are no Australian units of measurement." Imaginatorium (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to say keep by Andrew D., but will wait to see whether any real content is added. If it is, it might be better renamed to something like "Measurement in Australia". --Bduke (Discussion) 08:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using the adjectival form is unfortunate. But the contributor of this series of stubs reverted other attempts to switch to more appropriate titles, so that the list at Category:Units of measurement by country would be consistent (which it isn't, quite). There are English, Dutch, French, and German units (those also being the languages of the names of the units), but similarly there are no Belgian units of measurement, since French and Dutch units were used, until "Belgium" switched to the metric system 20 years before it came into existence. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is substantial content, then keep, however for now I'd suggest Merge with History of Australia. It might have some historical significance, but currently not enough to be worthy of its own page IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Australia is a massive page of over 250K and so needs breaking up per WP:SIZE rather than having more detail merged into it. People increasingly read Wikipedia on their phones now and so, per WP:NOTPAPER, our pages should be short and to the point rather than being huge, rambling compendia. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is pretty awful. There's currently one factoid that can't be dismissed as "imperial", metric, or metrification, but it's an "in popular culture" kind of thing, attributed to a Reliable Source that starts "Many visitors to Australia do not realize how unbelievably ginormous this country is until they actually start travelling around, the distances are simply amazing!" However, it seems to me that in this edit a baby might have been pulled out with bathwater. Meanwhile, the article on Metrication in Australia is less than stellar, telling us: (A) Metrication in Australia effectively began in 1966 with, the successful conversion to decimal currency - under the auspices of the Decimal Currency Board. The conversion of measurements — metrication — commenced subsequently in 1971 (keep those years in your heads!) and also (B) By 1968, metrication was already well under way in Australian industry. The pharmaceutical industry had metricated in 1965 and much of the chemical and electronics industries worked in metric units - there being no "Imperial" units for the latter. It's all too depressing. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-this is next to useless. No one measures distance in beer. Also decimal currency is unrelated to metric so that article should be fixed. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, but under a new name An article tracing the evolution in systems of measurement used in Australia would be useful, and there are lots of references to support this. The content of the current article isn't very good though, and it's title is rather eccentric. Moving it to Measurement in Australia would help somewhat. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources showing that the topic "Australian units of measurement" is notable per WP:GNG—what independent sources discuss that topic other than to note that Australians uses measurement systems established elsewhere? Anything useful about aboriginal measurement belongs somewhere else, and jokes such as the colloquial section might be mentioned in an article about slang, but should not appear as if they were encyclopedic information in an article on units. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains just 2 nuggets of fool's gold: a supposition about what aboriginal "units would be", and a collection of indeterminate humorous units. These are padded out with repetitive mentions of imperial and metric units and three pictures of measuring, which we can be confident did not use aboriginal units or bee's dicks. No substance and no notability. NebY (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent independent evidence of notability or need for a separate entry. PianoDan (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (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.