Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 gigametre


 * 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 procedural close. This is part of the bundled AfD Articles for deletion/1 metre (non-admin closure) —Torchiest talkedits 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1 gigametre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merge into Gigametre and leave a redirection, Professorjohnas (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be part of a bigger series.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is part of a series of dozens of articles illustrating orders of magnitude, so the 1 in the title is significant. The associated gigametre article is about the unit of measure itself, although there is some overlap in examples. Mark viking (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No argument for deletion (merge proposed). Not even an argument as to why it should be merged. It's broken out from Orders of magnitude (length) so it should be kept for that reason because it can't be merged back there owing to length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll give you a policy-based reason: Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. The fact that some things of a similar size does not seem reason enough to list them together.  The articles gigametre and orders of magnitude (length) already provide some illustrative examples.  We don't need spinout lists of arbitrary examples for each possible length too. Warden (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a list of arbitrary objects of about this size. In this case, the information is superficially impressive because this is an astronomical distance.  But if you compare the equivalent article in a human scale — 1 metre — you can see how arbitrary this is - the height of a doorknob, the size of a hobbit, &c.  What we don't seem to have in any of these cases is any sourcing to support the selection.  The topic therefore fails WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The two articles have different purposes. "Gigametre" provides the definition and comparison to the astronomical unit. "1 gigametre" provides a list of representative distances from 1–10 Gm. Both articles are suitable for Wikipedia. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Representative of what? Not one of the examples listed is actually 1 gigametre.  Where are the sources which show the notability of this particular range of distances?  The way these articles have been constructed, you could find a place for any distance of any size.  As they seem utterly indiscriminate, please explain how entries can or will be controlled to exclude every measurement which might be made or estimated? Warden (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Orders of magnitude (length) has sufficient examples. What purpose is served by adding more picked at random? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, along with the rest of the series. Orders of magnitude (length) is all that is necessary.  These articles are redundant and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  The little green pig (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. These articles seem useful for helping with size comparisons, and reference many different fields of study. Alphius (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is not useful for size comparisons. That would be Orders of magnitude (length).  This article is about one instance on a scale which does not indicate how this one instance is independently notable as opposed to properly placing it incontext with overall orders of magnitude for lengths. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete along with the rest of the series as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. PianoDan (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as part of the series discussed at Articles for deletion/1 metre. -- 202.124.89.45 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Close as moot - This article was also bundled into the overall "length articles" deletion discussion here. The discussion should take place there as part of the group, not here - The Bushranger One ping only 08:06, 28 January 2013 (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.