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 Conversion of units. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approximate conversion of units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

Metric yardstick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article doesn't really feel encyclopedic to me, the purpose seems to be targeted to U.S. people alone, and as a helper to understand conversions; Perhaps it should be moved into wikipedia namespace instead? _→AzaToth 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to approximate conversion of units. DS (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add that article in question to the delete pool also; It is OR, unreferenced, and mixed U.S. customary and imperial units, sometimes called "English unit". _→AzaToth 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete. All items are uncited, but citing them wouldn't actually improve the article. It's an essay.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect both to Conversion of units. It's not really original research: exact conversions are easy enough to cite and then taking an approximation is straight-forward but this is the point: there's nothing really here that you can't derive elsewhere using a little basic maths. JIMp _talk·cont 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Metric yardstick & approximate conversion of units to Conversion of units which is a reliable article rather than a set of approximations (which are by definition original research. I don't think the article is US centric either. Americans will use it to get metric units, us Europeans can use it to find the exact measure of a US unit. Unit conversions are factual values which are entirely encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article in question. I suspect that some sources could be found for approximate conversion of units, though. The metric system is unintelligible and must remain so: but some handy way of converting metric ciphers into partially intelligible terms may well provide useful information for those who are forced to struggle with them. The values given on Conversion of units may well impress some with its precision and rigor, but are much too detailed for home or kitchen. The chief virtue of English language measures is in fact their easy estimability and human scale: measures like "foot", "cup", and "tablespoon" bear the names of familiar objects and provide a valuable rule of thumb. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Conversion of units - it's all covered there, and this is common search term. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 07:00, 20 March 2009 (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.