Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benz (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   redirect to Metre per second. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Benz (unit)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable and not verifiable — Quondum 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a proposed unit, but very few sources mention it. I say either delete or merge/redirect to metre per second. I note that there is also a deletion discussion running on the talk page. Chris857 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons suggested by Quondum. I would not support any mention of this in any article unless a better source (more authoritative and with specific discussion) was found than the ones that have been mentioned so far. --Steve (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge and redirect – as nominator. I initially proposed it for deletion (WP:PROD) since I felt that this would be an uncontrovertial deletion. One editor opposed on the talk page, but since there has also been support for deletion there, it seemed appropriate to have an AfD debate here. — Quondum 05:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For completeness, the most notable reference I've found so far is, quoted here:
 * Quantity: Velocity (SI) Definition: 1 benz = 1 metre per second. Note: This unit has been proposed by Germany, but has not received general acceptance.
 * I still stand by my position that this should not be an article. — Quondum 12:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable with the merge-and-redirect approach as suggested by others below, since enough mention seems to have been found to justify this. — Quondum 17:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No apparent notability at all. Unless somebody comes up with a reference that actually uses this unit, I see no reason to include it anywhere.TR 10:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. It's mentioned in a few places online, but there's no substantial treatment, it's not included in mainstream lists of SI units, and the arguments for inclusion on the article talk page are more about it being useful than it currently being used. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Metre per second, where it deserves a brief mention. I was able to find some references, but not enough to justify a separate article. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to metre per second. In addition to sources previously mentioned, it gets a brief passage in this 1974 book on the history of measurement, and is at least name-dropped in this 2005 journal article (showing that, while not adopted per se, it at least has some continuing currency).  I don't think that's enough for a article, but there's enough bits and pieces here to warrant inclusion in the natural topic, in my opinion.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have boldly added a brief passage to metre per second. I'm not entirely wedded to its retention if consensus finds against the quality of sourcing, but the addition may otherwise allow a redirect to solve the debate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good move, Ossifrage! Owen&times;  &#9742;  23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Metre per second, and add another hatnote for people looking for Karl Benz. The unit seems worth mentioning, but not worth its own article, in terms of both notability and possible extent of the article. That said, all references found so far mention the unit, none uses it. Thus I can also live with deletion. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect as no-one uses this unit and doesn't seem notable though enough for an article but a brief mention in m/s would be fine.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:23, 23 October 2012 (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.