Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK and US counting units

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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK and US counting units[edit]

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

Another junk contribution from the unreliable Cardarelli book. The Hat trick line is particularly hilarious, as well as technically wrong. A hat trick is three in a row; a pair is two of the same thing -- this "conversion" amounts to noticing the two numbers and meaninglessly dividing them. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arg above and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a conversion table website. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 05:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these look like a list of dictionary definitions collected onto the same article. Minima © (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium: I have already provided you a link for hat trick on other website too. It is not relevant weather a unit in counting in known by all people or not. What is the ground of your arguments. How do you say Cardarelli book is unreliable? did you refer it? What are your grounds? You must have proper evidence on what you are saying? How do you say my contribution is a junk? What is you qualification? Did you ever publish a research paper?

In hat-trick, how can you deny fact of hat-trick is being equality as a counting unit with half. In a dictionary definition, your argument can be true. In unit conversions, it can be compared with half in approximate way with the meaning to comply with the existing meaning in numerical way. Numbers does not cover all the meanings sometimes with regarding usage of units. Shevonsilva (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikichugirl So, improve the table by providing more information rather than recommending to delete each an every small article. Provide a contribution by writing or enhancing an article. Shevonsilva (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Minimac: What is your point? You can divide some encyclopaedic article entries into dictionary entries by dividing them. Try to enhance the article rather than recommending existing articles to be deleted. Shevonsilva (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm shocked by this gross flock of half-baked things somebody pulled out of a hat. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No policy needed. There is already an article called English units. Several units are already mentioned there and with some sort of description in relation to other units. Additionally, there are other articles like Conversion of units where this information, if properly confirmed and cited, would have been able to be likely accepted into the article there. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is plain rubbish. How is a reader helped by being told that a "Baker's dozen" is "13/23 dozen"? Even it were accurately typed as 13/12, this is pointless. A reader needs a dictionary definition, elsewhere, or a sourced discussion of the origin and use of this term. This list is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, I should have checked, there is already throrough coverage at Dozen#baking, reached by a redirect from baker's dozen. PamD 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a useful List of English words or phrases denoting numbers to include baker's dozen, score, gross, etc, giving for each the numeric meaning with a source (OED, Websters, etc), a link to any wp article, and perhaps brief info on geog or usage context. It might already exist. But this isn't that useful list. PamD 07:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list at English_numerals#Specialized_numbers, which looks comprehensive and sensible but is unsourced and not perhaps at the most obvious title. Scope for future development, but streets ahead of the article under discussion here! PamD 10:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added hat-trick and decade to [[English_numerals#Specialized_numbers]], sourced to OED and linked to their articles; note that Flock as meaning "40" is not included in OED. If an allegedly English word is not in OED, I would need a very reliable source to convince me that it exists (and would then send the said source to OUP as a potential addition). PamD 10:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an exercise in numeric obscurantism. The source cited seems designed to confuse, and the cherry-picked 'definitions' presented even more so. Only the broader concerns over the article creator's usage of this source dissuade me from seeing this article as outright trolling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the arguments given above; misleading, entirely unnecessary, not really an asset to the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless article .....As noted above we have English units so no need for this crap. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A motley assembly of terms better defined in dictionaries, here padded out with absurd conversions. No encyclopedic value and not redeemed by the article creator's latest edit.NebY (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (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.