Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary content fork, all differences could simply be explained in United States customary units \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why merge to United States customary units? If we're merging, merge to English units. J IM ptalk·cont 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment why the US article, why not the English article? Since it should be in both articles, why not have a separate one? 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment a summary, neutrally article is useful; I'm not happy about the naming however. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Unsourcedalicious! I can see where a readable table might be added to both articles, but this is a mass of statistics.  I imagine that all of this information is elsewhere, so I see no point in having a table that recites that one imperial pint is 1.20094992550 American pints ("1.20094992548, 1.20094992549, 1.20094992552 -- Dammit, don't you know how to handle an eye dropper?  Now we've got to start over, you stupid Yank!").  The primary function of a table is to simplify things, and I have difficulty in endorsing a merger of this bus schedule to another article.  Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Could this article be merged, perhaps, but as a stand alone it is notable and informative if not comprehensively referenced--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Very easily sourceable, and a summary of the articles on the different units.   This is an appropriate summary way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details.    DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourceable and useful information. Many books in the 19th century had long articles on the differences in units of measure between the imperial and U.S. systems, and their origens. See ],, , . That such a comparison is encyclopedic is demonstrated by its coverage in print encyclopedias such as 1912 and other editions of Americana  up to the present, as well as Britannica. It would make a general article on weights and measures or History of measurementtoo long, but that could also be an appropriate home. Edison (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2009 (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.