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 merge to English units. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tod (unit)[edit]

Tod (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English units. The content of this page would easily fit there. This is a real, albeit obsolete, unit; see A History of Agriculture and Prices in England and Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - see related AfDs at WP:Articles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit), WP:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit), and more. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not dictionary material; it's weights and measures which is the stuff of an almanac. Per WP:5, almanac content is fine and we have extensive material about weights, measures and units of all kinds. The wool trade was England's main source of income for many centuries and so this is a quite a significant matter for the English wikipedia. The topic is discussed in detail in sources such as Weighing Wool in the Middle Ages. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And also according to WP:5 Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, specifically "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article doesn't meet this standard, it is data, with no context, cited to a single source, a source that on some occasions has proven to be inaccurate. Even though it is accurate in many cases and probably even accurate in this case, it still doesn't go beyond a dictionary definition whether it's almanac type material or not. As Imaginatorium said, this should be included in an article titled Wool measurement as there is simply not enough content for this to ever be anything other than a stub, if that. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There certainly should be an article about the weighing of wool, and the series of units used for it: from [1]: "In evidence given to the 1862 Select Committee on Weights and Measures, a Mr Greenhall said that “we have the grain, dram, drop, ounce, pound, stone, score, ton. In wool measure we have a clove, tod, wey, pack, sack or last." However, the title for such an encyclopaedia article should be "Wool measurement" or similar, and not any one of the individual units.
• Should the material in this article be merged somewhere? No, because it contains zero value, just the usual Cardarelli bogus specificity and bogus precision. The page above gives a range of values for the "todd", and no doubt the spelling was also variable. Elsewhere there are Weys of 6-1/2 tods, and much local variation.
• Should there be a redirect? No, because "Tod (unit)" is a disambiguation title; no-one will search for "Tod (unit)".
• It would be really nice if we could have a sense of cooperation in the building of a better encyclopedia, instead of these crazy drawn-out arguments. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another non-notable unit page from Cardarelli. See all the OTHER discussions for why this, too, is not appropriate as a WP page. PianoDan (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Cardarelli is a dubious source, the article is poorly written ("defined" as 1/9 Wey? unlikely; metric conversion to 8 decimal places? absurd), but the material would be better added to English units and linked to there from the dab page at Tod (where no-one has bothered to add it as yet). OED agrees that "Tod" exists, as "A weight used in the wool trade, usually 28 pounds or 2 stone, but varying locally". PamD 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added a dab at Tod, but with no wikilink to English units, until someone decides to add it there as well. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Microstub based on a single source that has been conclusively proven to be unreliable. It cannot stand on its own and, if we were to have an article on wool units, none of this content would end up there. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English units. The book A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles: The Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century, Volume 168 has a wealth of information on old English units; there is a page and a half on the tod unti for wool. The book looks reliable with the few facts on the tod carefully sourced. I have added the relevant facts and source to the tod article. With this book and the sources found by Metropolitan90, the tod as a unit seems amply verified. I agree with Andrew Davidson that as an almanac, this unit should have some place on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is enough in-depth sourcing out there to justify a standalone article, that is the topic fails WP:GNG. Merge to an appropriate target seems the best course. We have an article on Wool measurement, but it seems solely concerned with fiber diameters. It is also an example of trading standards, but again that article doesn't discuss units. English units seems the best target for now, but in the interest of consensus, I would be happy with a merge to Wool measurement as well. --Mark viking (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English units per Mark viking and Metropolitan90, and as a reasonable alternative to deletion. The English units article barely mentions the topic, and it is verifiable. The book link in the !vote directly above doesn't display the book content, but here is a link that does. There are also the links provided by Metropolitan90, which also provide verification: [2], [3]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 4 March 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.