Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(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 delete. No objection to creating a redirect to a suitable target. Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Calibre(unit)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable unit of measurement. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. War wizard90 (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 18.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note The article has been moved to Calibre (unit) Pam  D  06:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps merge to English units? Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I am ok with merging this and several other articles created by this same editor into relevant measurement articles, most of these do not need their own article and are dictionary definitions only. Thoughts? War wizard90 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I am concerned about the reliability of the source. I put a list of the pages created here noting that they appear to be based on Other Systems of Units by François Cardarelli. The author link does not seem to show relevant credentials that would warrant relying on the source for novel information: if the book confirms what is in more established sources, the alternatives should be used, and claims that are not confirmed elsewhere should not be used in Wikipedia. I've asked the editor whether the book contains more information than tables showing equivalences such as 1 wrap = 240 feet. Depending on what extra details are available, I'm inclining towards deleting all the pages (or perhaps redirects for some) rather than literally merging. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: the same book source lists "Wrap = 240 ft" (and it does, I've seen the page in Google books), but the Oxford English Dictionary has no such meaning for "wrap". It does show a linear measure, but it's shown as 3564 yards. If the OED doesn't know about the 240ft version of "wrap", this casts doubt on the reliability of the source. (I wondered if it was a typo for "warp", but there's no 240ft unit in OED for that either.) Pam  D  14:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is obviously the same topic which we have at the US spelling:- caliber. As the alternate spelling is a plausible search term, we should obviously merge. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a unit, and not the same as Calibre or Caliber (artillery) which are about a numerical attribute of a weapon. Pam D  00:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The calibre of a gun is the diameter of the barrel which is commonly given in hundredths of an inch, e.g. the famous Colt 45. And hundredths of an inch is what the page in question is talking about.  Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have asked about this at Talk:Caliber. My Shorter OED makes it clear that "calibre" originated as a measure of the diameter of a bullet or cannon ball, and I can't find any information that calibre/caliber is a generic unit of length (although the OED states that, by extension, the bore of a tube may be specified in calibres). Assuming no source shows calibre being used in a generic fashion, all the information about the unit should be at Caliber. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also asked about the reliability of the source at WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete in the absence of a reliable source that says it is a unit of measurement and not the aspect that is being measured. The full OED entry makes no mention of it as a unit. ("calibre | caliber, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2014. Web. 21 December 2014. if a source is needed) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Unlikely to become more than a stub &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The existing article is Caliber, and Calibre is a redirect to that article. No one is going to search for "Calibre (unit)", however if they did they would find Caliber. As noted above, I tried to get some interest at Talk:Caliber because that article needs a clear statement that 1 caliber = 0.01 inch. That needs to be fixed, but meanwhile the page under discussion is not needed. The issue of these articles has been raised at DRN. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue raised at DRN, has been move to ANI, per the request of the DRN volunteer. War wizard90 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete calibre(unit), and redirect calibre (unit) to caliber. Given the concerns about this source, we apparently can't trust its assertions, so redirecting the page seems the safest choice.  calibre(unit) seems an unlikely typo, so we might as well trash it instead of redirecting it.  Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to some list like List of Obselete units of measurement or something. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, don't merge it anywhere, at least until somebody brings convincing evidence that it was used. After all, I read above that it's not in the OED; and it's not in 小泉袈裟勝 (Koizumi Kesakatsu), 『単位の辞典』 (Tan'i no jiten) 4th ed (Tokyo: Rateisu, 1981), a large and authoritative dictionary of units. Delete. &para; See also Articles for deletion/UKline. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * redirect to Caliber. This isn't an independent unit of length, it's a shorthand term for inch-based units, in the specific application of small arms. It has no application outside this. Caliber could use expansion to clarify this though. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2014 (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.