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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salmarazd[edit]

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

The evidence is that the subject is a typo or misunderstanding. Please see case study: Salmarazd. All related meaningful content is already included in Wine_bottle#Sizes. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Wine bottle#Sizes. My preference is delete as this is part of a series of pages created by copying information from a poor source which has been shown to contain blunders. There are a couple of Google hits for the term (in addition to the many derivatives of this article) but it's likely the original was a typo and keeping this page suggests the term is legitimate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging all editors who contributed to the previous mass AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum_(unit) @Northamerica1000, VQuakr, War wizard90, JohnBlackburne, Hoary, Andrew Davidson, JTdale, Kikichugirl, Purplebackpack89, Dream Focus, Astrocog, Milowent, Reyk, Edwardx, KTo288, Alex rosenberg35, and PianoDan: (I cannot really see a helpful classification for this AfD.) I could have PRODded this, but I wanted a bit more discussion. I have spent considerable time on the case study for this, and I hope this might speed up further removal of references to the unreliable Cardarelli source. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term derives from a tabular mention (not an encyclopedia entry or similar) in just one book. This book is not "unreliable" as "unreliable" is normally used hereabouts -- it's not self-serving or biassed. However, it has been shown to get the facts wrong. And not just one or two facts, but a lot of them. (Yes, it's a book that has been praised by "reliable sources" -- but praised for its SI-related contents, which are irrelevant here.) ¶ The term also appears in a second book, and does so in a similar way. This book is published by the same company (Springer) as published the first; imaginably, this allowed copying; but such guesswork aside, the book does seem to concentrate on SI and the preceding decimal systems, so terms for bottle sizes seems peripheral. ¶ If the term really existed and had a non-trivial degree of use, I'd expect to see instances of "drank a salmarazd", "poured a salmarazd", "shared a salmarazd", "celebrated with a salmarazd", or similar; but a search in Google for "a salmarazd" -- and thus after any verb or preposition! -- brings a grand total of zero hits. ¶ No, don't redirect to Wine bottle#Sizes. Doing so would require a mention in the target article, but there's no reason to give additional prominence to what is most likely a transcription error or other mere misunderstanding. ¶ And please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) for this source. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Congratulations on finding that occurrence in Jerrard and McNeill. It increasingly looks to me as though the Cardarelli book is a very faithful copy of other wonky work, rather than original error; this after I discovered the Japanese units are a copy of the Washburn reference. I have ordered a first edition of J&McN, so will try to investigate sequence of origin. ¶ I am a bit confused about this "unreliable" bit. I use the word to mean what it normally means, just that you cannot rely on the content being correct (to normal levels of accuracy). I do not even play a Wikilawyer in local musicals, so you can always assume I use words in their normal meaning. (But it's a bit hard not to see the business of recyling inaccurate book content for 100+ Euros a kick as at least slightly self-serving?) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "not reliable" tends hereabouts to mean written by the biographee or a chum of the biographee, or written somewhere the moderately informed person wouldn't expect scrupulous editing; "reliable" encompasses that which comes out from respected publishers, regardless of the deservedness of that respect (cough). Rather as the concept of "notability" is skewed hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete As possibly a hoax, or just very NN. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is the Stupping ton all over again. A nonexistent unit of measurement based on a sloppy mistake in a book full of sloppy mistakes. Reyk _YO! 19:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect: the only possible content for an article would be "Misleading typo promulgated in notoriously unreliable book". (Is it still in print? Has anyone pointed out to Springer what rubbish they've published, not worthy of their name as a scientific publisher?) I wonder how many editor hours have been wasted tidying up the flood of article creations based on the rubbish in this book. (Speaking as the editor who worked out the "Stupping ton" was a misreading of "Shipping ton") PamD 07:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Springer's website lists 3 in-print titles by this author: Materials Handbook (from £178, 2008, and upcoming 2016 ed); Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures (from £124, 2003); Scientific Unit Conversion: A Practical Guide to Metrication (from £59, 1999). PamD 07:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent set at other AFDs and the rationales there. There's not enough sources to determine notability, anyway. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:46, 18 June 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.