Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 E+4 m³


 * 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   keep. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1 E+4 m³

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is not necessary Mr.   Anon  515  22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing more than a unit conversion table. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD needs to consider all the following articles:- 1 E+1 m³ | 1 E+10 m³ | 1 E+11 m³ | 1 E+12 m³ | 1 E+15 m³ | 1 E+18 m³ | 1 E+2 m³ | 1 E+21 m³ | 1 E+24 m³ | 1 E+27 m³ | 1 E+3 m³ | 1 E+30 m³ | 1 E+4 m³ | 1 E+40 m³ | 1 E+5 m³ | 1 E+50 m³ | 1 E+6 m³ | 1 E+7 m³ | 1 E+8 m³ | 1 E+80 m³ | 1 E+9 m³ | 1 E-1 m³ | 1 E-10 m³ | 1 E-14 m³ | 1 E-15 m³ | 1 E-16 m³ | 1 E-17 m³ | 1 E-18 m³ | 1 E-2 m³ | 1 E-3 m³ | 1 E-30 m³ | 1 E-4 m³ | 1 E-5 m³ | 1 E-6 m³ | 1 E-7 m³ | 1 E-8 m³ | 1 E-9 m³ I think all these articles should be treated alike, so I hereby co-nominate all of them, even though my position will not be to delete them.— S Marshall T/C 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge all to orders of magnitude (volume). This is not encyclopaedic content, and in the normal run of things unencyclopaedic content should be deleted, but there are limited exceptions per WP:5P:  Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia.  We are also a gazetteer, and (relevant to this discussion) an almanac.  As an almanac, one of our roles is to provide clear, tabulated information that's already been worked out, in order to help casual browsers of Wikipedia.  Therefore, even though it's unencyclopaedic, it's nevertheless part of our stated mission to provide this information to our users. Because this material would be so long if merged, I recommend that it should be placed in collapsed boxes in orders of magnitude (volume) rather than just dumped in there wholesale.— S Marshall  T/C 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;No reason to delete this range of articles about a common unit.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * strong keep as is and don't merge. Look at 1 metre and other associated articles. These have existed for a while and provide important content and context. As for merging them all into one (section of an) article, I say that having them split as they are keeps the eye from glazing over on too much information. It's easier to get the data if you aren't being bombard by sensory overload. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of these articles are very short and only have one or two tidbits of information (like this). In any case, I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to simply have lists of random information. Mr.   Anon  515  20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per UtherSRG. There is too much content in this set of articles to merge; some of the articles may be small, but they will grow over time. There can be no doubt that the concept of size is extremely notable, and even size ranges like this get an enormous number of mentions. -- 202.124.74.166 (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unencyclopaedic content. A list of items with an area of a given magnitude to me seems an indiscriminate collection of information. --Anthem 11:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the functions of Wikipedia is that of an almanac, and this is suitable information of that sort. Same pattern as many other fully accepted articles. We exist in order to be helpful for the reader.    DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.