Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bag (unit)


 * 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   speedy keep. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bag (unit)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Not enough content to warrant even a stub. If unit can be verified per WP:V content could be merged to bag. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not dictionary content; it's weights and measures, which is the stuff of an almanac. It's not clear why the nomination raises WP:V as all content is sourced; did the nominator not perform any checks himself?  And merger isn't deletion - see WP:SK and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is quite an important unit -- or rather, family of units -- with lots of sources. The nom has failed to do a WP:BEFORE check. I would also argue against a merge with bag. -- 120.17.97.244 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: this has been totally rewritten since its pathetic beginnings as one of the Cardarelli follies (he no longer even gets a mention), and is now just about article-worthy. I've added OED's take on the word, and added it to Bag (disambiguation) and as a "See also" to Bag. Pam  D  11:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nomination Withdrawn per above. -War wizard90 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2015 (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.