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.
Cleaning up the fallout after this RfC, I submit this bundled AfD. There are in total 40 affected pages, everything that is linked behind a number inside the following box (sorry, too lazy to list all the names when there is a template that includes them):
I got tired and only tagged them up to 10⁹ (i.e. 1 gigametre, though I did all the negatives). I do not have a bot's patience for doing such tedious tasks, when I think extremely unlikely that somewhere there is someone watching 10 zettametres who will not find this. If you disagree and think it is absolutely necessary to tag them all, be my guest. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Together they are an arbitrary list of examples of every conceivable length contrary to the spirit of WP:IINFO. The article titles are quite misleading and so should not be retained as redirects. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete allMerge all to Orders of magnitude (length) unless somebody can make a good case why we need a redirect from 1 Gigametre to Gigametre. I tried the search routine and found that searching for 1000 Gigametre finds the 100 Gigametre and 10 Gigametre and 1 Gigametre articles but -not- the Gigametre article. This may be important enough to create the redirects as Tigraan suggests but I would assume people search just for Gigametre anyway so just deleting would be fine? DeVerm (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
update: changed to merge as per the consensus from the RfC as shown by Mark Viking below. Perfect place for them to go. DeVerm (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: I'm travelling and trying to do this on an iPad so have to kee this short; my pov is like Mark's below, keeping redirect to preserve history. DeVerm (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Orders of magnitude (length) per the outcome of the RFC at Talk:1 metre#Rename proposal. I don't see any justification for going against the March 2016 consensus. A comparison of orders of magnitude like this is obviously encyclopedic--1 kilometre has a history going back to 20 November 2001, and Wikipedia was started on January 15, 2001. A 2008 AfD on these articles was closed as keep; a 2013 AfD on these articles was closed as no consensus. Sampling some of the articles shows sourcing for at least some entries. I'll note that some of the articles have not been properly nominated, with no notices placed on their respective pages. So at this point, merge orders of magnitude from below -12 to 9 and for now, keep the others. On the issue of redirects, the merged articles should have redirects to preserve attribution history after merging, even if they are unlikely search terms. --Mark viking (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator The "consensus of March 2016" was indeed to merge, but it was not very clear about what to merge. The point of that AfD is also to determine if redirects are in order. I agree about the redirects being needed for copyright (if material is merged). TigraanClick here to contact me 20:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Orders of magnitude (length). The redirects are more useful than simply redlinking the titles, and I agree with Andrew D.'s reasoning as to why the articles shouldn't be kept. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator - Sorry if the nomination was not clear, but this AfD is not supposed to overrule the RfC that said the articles ought to be merged. The two issues are to decide on the redirects (I think 1 metre → Orders of magnitude (length) is a strange redirect, when 1 metre → Metre is more natural), and how much is to be merged.
I could have merged/redirected everything on my own and then brought the bunch at WP:RFD but I feel it goes against the spirit because if one of the redirects went down the drain this way, the content would have been lost forever. I think AfD is a better place to discuss the content of the articles; and while we are at it, let us discuss the redirect targets as well. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep I see no reason to delete these pages, or go against the consensus. It doesn't go against the spirit of WP:IINFO, because the pages serve the purpose of delineating the values of the orders of magnintude with concrete examples, and are thus not "excessive" listings of statistics. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as not independently convincing of its own article. SwisterTwistertalk 06:46, 12 July 2016 (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.