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 redirect to Chinese_units_of_measurement#Chinese_area_units_promulgated_in_1915. Consensus to redirect (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meou[edit]

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

Removed PROD rationale: Nonstandard romanisation of unit covered in Chinese units of measurement#Chinese area units promulgated in 1915. I think this is duplicate content, the spelling only appears in this specific source, appears to fail WP:GNG. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Chinese_units_of_measurement#Area. Much of the info in Cardarelli's book is unsupported elsewhere. PamD 12:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 21:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a variant spelling of mu, as you can see from this and this. (No, neither source is Cardarelli.) The mu is the basic Chinese unit of land, still commonly used today. In both pinyin and Wade-Giles, this word is spelled "mu." In Hong Kong spelling, it is meu and in Jyutping it is moe. So meou some kind of older, non-systematic variant. NotUnusual (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems reasonable to redirect. Raomanization is funky. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not only can written romanization be funky, but English speakers don't necessarily know how to spell romanized Chinese in the first place. Even if this were purely an error in one source, which it isn't, it would still be worth redirecting. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The unit is not sufficiently notable for its own article. I would not rely on the source used for this article (see WP:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) for more information), but given the above statements the page should be a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Insufficient references for independent notability. Redirect is appropriate, although spelling may be difficult to spot. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:52, 11 January 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.