Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambda (unit)

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. Editors who have suggested that the text be merged elsewhere should feel free to pursue that option if they wish. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda (unit)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, of course this doesn't even meet the standard of a dictionary as the definition section is blank. -War wizard90 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-known non-SI metric unit. Plenty of references exist, and two have been added to the article. Also, as another editor notes below, this is not dictionary content; it's weights and measures, which is almanac content, specifically included in WP:5. The definition section is no longer blank, so there is no longer a valid deletion criterion. -- 120.17.41.188 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an issue of notability and thus not a question of the existence of references or how well-known it is. It is a question if it is capable of becoming more than a dictionary definition, this doesn't meet the standards of a stub. There is no purpose in keeping an article about an obsolete unit of measurement that will never go beyond a dictionary definition, regardless of whether it is material that would be included in an almanac or not. Be careful of editors who WP:CHERRYPICK Wikipedia policies to support their statements. Also per WP:5, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, more specifically, Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. There simply is not enough content here to warrant a standalone article. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is enough material on the history of this unit to take this to a standalone article. You only say "there simply is not enough content here to warrant a standalone article" because you have not looked. -- 120.17.41.188 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're making assumptions, how do you know I have not looked? I looked and did not find much, simply saying it was used in chemisty once isn't enough for a standalone article. Sure there are plenty of verifiable sources, but they all say the same few things about it. If you believe there is enough material on the history of the unit for a standalone article, then by all means, improve the article to avoid this deletion. You have made some improvements, but a history of once being used in chemistry still isn't enough. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I vote delete because the content can fit easily in Lambda and that article would serve as a better incubator for the content. if Lambda as a unit of measurement gets so much information in the article it can spin out we could then split the article and have Lambda (unit) be a great article not a stub. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the content is merged, Lambda is in my view a poor target, because it has nothing to do with measurement. Logically Lambda (unit) belongs with other non-SI metric units like calorie, erg, or Angstrom, but most of those have their own page. Since it's an alternate name for "microlitre," litre might be an appropriate merge target. However, even if such a merge occurs (and I would argue against it), there is no reason at all to delete the article history. -- 120.17.41.188 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response The rason I think Lambda would be a good article is that the article already has sections "Lambda as a name" and "Lambda as a programming construct" so having "Lambda as a unit of measurement" isn't that much of a strech for the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found another reference to its use in chemistry making think that it has some historical significance related to the early science of chemistry. Bfpage |leave a message 21:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read the nomination reason, the issue is not Notability, so finding more sources to backup previously made statements does NOT make this article somehow more worthy of inclusion. The issue is that there isn't enough information in reliable secondary sources to warrant anything more than a dictionary definition. So, perhaps, a transwiki to Wiktionary would be appropriate, but a dictionary definition of a rarely used term is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Yes, it was historically used in chemistry/medicine and may see some small uses today, but how does that translate into an article that can "minimally" meet the requirements of a stub? Don't forget, AfD, is not here just to debate the merits of the notability of articles. Notability is not the only factor in determining the appropriateness of an article. Simply put, and as I already stated in the nomination, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is nothing more than a dictionary definition with as yet, no substance to make it an article and no evidence that enough content is out there to make it substantial. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In spite of being deprecated, the lambda as a unit is still used. This is probably because it avoids errors where a µ is misread as an m (which, in medicine, would result in a massive overdose), but I haven't yet found a reliable reference for that. -- 120.17.117.224 (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new section of lambda. When I saw this, I was ready to hate yet-another-stupid-unit-article-with-the-almanach-crowd, but the article as it stands is more than just a dictionary definition: it discusses the problems with µL that can be mixed up with mL with what looks like a reliable source. Alas, this is a WP:PERMASTUB, so I would merge it with lambda. Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per the rationale given by Tigraan; merging to lambda seems like the best option, because while the article is notable, it will almost certainly never be expanded beyond a stub. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep asaseparate article "never will be expanded beyond a stub" is not a reason to merge. permeant stub articles are appropriate when there is a separate and specific meaning. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highlights problem of dosage size confusion RobBertholf (talk) 15:44, 3 April 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.