Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gram per cubic metre

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. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gram per cubic metre[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was created via the Articles for Creation process. The reviewer rejected the request with the comment "This is a mixed unit - we have grams/cubic centimeter in the CGS system and kilograms per cubic meter in the MKS system. This mixed unit is not needed." The creator of the article, after a long delay, has moved the article from Draft space to mainspace him/herself. This article arose from an attempt to create a series of articles on "UCUM units" that paralleled the SI units articles, without any evidence that such a system of units is actually in use by anyone. Srleffler (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This page is only about the unit, not about its reference to UCUM. My talk page itself has a message saying plus a one-sentence comment in each unit article, stating how that unit is represented in UCUM. So, this article is also welcome for the comment. Google itself has a large number of hits. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of Google hits is not a good reason to keep an article. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Random units like this don't merit entries in lists, much less standalone articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose the deletion. See my comment above. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability of this article seems to hinge on the notability of UCUM itself. The US National Library of Medicine claims that UCUM is used by ISO 11240:2012. Is the claim correct? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that UCUM is cited by ISO 11240 (as ref 49). That does not prove it is used, but I consider it a good enough reason to delay deletion until we find someone with a copy of the standard. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We absolutely should not have articles on mixed units merely to say they are a conceivable combination of units with certain conversion factors, this is absurd. The page's citation has kilogram per cubic meter and milligram per cubic meter in its table, not this. I would delete Gram per cubic centimetre too. Kilogram per cubic metre is enough for density Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
"ISO 11240 Units of Measurement specifies rules for the usage and coded representation of units of measurement for exchanging information about quantitative medicinal product characteristics such as dosage strength.

The Unified Code for Units of Measure (UCUMExternal Link Disclaimer) is the ISO 11240 compliant standard. FDA receives submissions, for example, that use the UCUM syntax standard for dosage strength in both content of product labeling and drug establishment registration and drug listing."

For me that confirms the notability of UCUM (and of the g/m^3 as the UCUM unit of ~~volume~~density). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoint: if this AfD passes and the article is deleted, we should delete kilogram per cubic metre as well, as equally lacking in notability. PianoDan (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which means gram per litre should also be deleted then. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed PianoDan (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we go down this path, we should also delete Gram per cubic centimetre. I would support that if done consistently. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason for any of those articles to exist, when Density#Common units is right there and perfectly suited to explaining any nonstandard units that might arise in specialized applications. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilogram per cubic metre at least is a coherent derived unit in an actual system of measurement that people use. Gram per cubic centimetre is as well. We could debate whether that is sufficient for an article, but their claim is stonger than this article's.--Srleffler (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: I question the assertion that grams per cubic metre is "the UCUM unit of density". If this were an article, I would ask for a reliable source for that statement.--Srleffler (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm tending towards keep as the UCUM base unit of density.~~ Notability (of UCUM) is provided by ISO 11240 and the FDA. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, WP:RS for this as "the" UCUM unit of density?--Srleffler (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no source. If the concept of derived UCUM units does not exist then I withdraw my provisional support for keep. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fundamentally disagree that the notability of THIS unit hinges on the notability of UCUM. Composite units should stand or fall on their own notability, not just their inclusion in a system. At best, this should just be included in the article on UCUM itself, but even that strikes me as dubious. PianoDan (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The UCUM article could mention that this is the derived unit for density given its choice of base units, but that's a single sentence at most, and possibly not even worth saying on account of being an obvious deduction from the table there. Nothing is clarified by having a stand-alone article dedicated to a "topic" that's barely worth an entry in a list. WP:NOTTRIVIA. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there anything whatsoever that anyone could possibly say on the subject of grams per cubic metre, beyond a mere dictionary definition? Elemimele (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Density of a certain ex-senator from Texas? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, or at worse, redirect to density. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (nom): I disagree with the assertion made in several places above that the notability of this article hinges on the notability of UCUM. UCUM is a coding system that enables any unit to be encoded in a consistent way, to allow machine-to-machine transmission of data between systems that may use different units. It is not a system of measurement, and no reliable sources have been presented asserting that it is one. Internally, UCUM software uses a meter-gram-second basis for encoding units from various systems of measurement, so that it knows how to convert units from one system to another. There are no specific "UCUM derived units" (see Draft talk:UCUM derived unit). The UCUM Specification does not, as far as I can find, define a system of "UCUM derived units", and does not mention grams per cubic metre as having any special significance. All units, in any common system, can be "derived" in UCUM. This article arose as part of an attempt by Neel.arunabh to create articles and templates for UCUM that parallel the articles and templates on SI. I have not seen any evidence that any human being is using UCUM as a measurment system, or that "derived units" such as grams per cubic metre are of any special significance in UCUM.--Srleffler (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Kilogram per cubic metre as those looking for this term should get some result. Delete is a good idea as there is no need for this content. If a redirect, could also have grams per cubic metre (and the more correct meter) as redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per PianoDan's suggestions, content from all the specific unit articles should be deleted and should all be redirected to Density. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would only be necessary if we though any of these were likely search terms. I'm not really sold on the necessity. PianoDan (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. UCUM is not a system of units. It is a coding system to unambiguously identify units in electronic records and databases, since there is a lack of standardization in labeling units. UCUM has a unique symbol for each unit commonly used in science, engineering, and business. Examples are m for meter and [ft-i] for foot. See the tables here. The system gives examples of how to parse and code combined units such as the one in this article, but the combined units have no special significance. UCUM itself is a notable system and has been adopted by many organizations. See the information from the US National Library of Medicine here. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digression on UCUM derived units[edit]

If there's no such thing as derived unit in UCUM, then what are the implications for Template:UCUM_other_units? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to the pile of things to delete if this AfD passes: (If we make a complete list here, I'll file the next AfD on the whole pile.)

PianoDan (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Template:UCUM light units and Template:UCUM radiometry units next. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metre squared per second should also be deleted. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2021 (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.