Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customary stone


 * 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. As there is no content to be merged at this point according to the below discussion, the clear policy-backed consensus here is to delete the article in question. Furthermore, (as stated by Kww below) as long as the work's original author is attributed to, the licensing requirements are met; "the sequence of events" is not/has never been required by CC BY-SA 3.0. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Customary stone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: The only source is from a non-native speaker of English (Cardarelli), and it is overwhelmingly likely that this is a misreading. The phrase "customary stone" no doubt occurs, as in "In ...such-and-such field... the customary stone is one of 18lbs", as opposed to the more standard stone of 14 lbs. Since (actually!) the customary stone is 14lbs, it would be almost impossible to have a unit "customary-stone" as distinct from "customary" "stone". Imaginatorium (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge into stone (unit). As explained at that article, there were a large variety of stone weights used through Europe and the UK.  The customary stone here was a popular weight used by butchers which was 8 pounds of meat or cheese.  This appeared in tables of weights and measures in works such as Whitaker's Almanac, where it was contrasted with the legal stone of 14 pounds, which was commonly known as the horseman's weight because it was used to weigh jockeys in handicap races.  WP:DICDEF tells us to bring topics together by their meaning and the stone (unit) page seems to be best place to cover all this. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to stone (unit) per Andrew Davidson. Pam  D  23:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no such thing as a "customary stone"—no one asked a butcher for a customary stone of meat. Before the 1800s the UK had no national standard of measurement, and a "stone" represented different things in different places and trades. From the Whitaker's almanac link above we see that butchers meant 8 pounds when referring to a stone, but another source shows that it was customary for a stone of wool to mean 18 pounds. The word "customary" is merely a decoration to distinguish stone as used by a butcher from the same word defined in the UK 1824 Act. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The customary stone would certainly be a real thing - it would be a large weight, originally a stone, used on a balance to measure the commodity in question. Note there was some equivalence between the butcher's weight and the weight of the animal in legal stones - the rough proportion of the carcasse that would be meat. Andrew D. (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that the butcher would have called the object a stone, not a "customary stone". Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This article conveys a basic misunderstanding. The stone is indeed an ancient means of measurement and as a unit of measurement has had a wide range of values, as documented in Stone (unit). But no one of these values was called a "customary stone" in legislation, trade or metrology. To retain this article would be to knowingly misinform the reader. NebY (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I !voted delete: in a sense one might say "merge", since it would be quite reasonable on the Stone (unit) page to add a note that sometimes the term "customary stone" was used in opposition to "legal [or whatever] stone". But there is actually no *information* on this page to merge. So effectively there is agreement on deleting. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems hard for the nay-sayers to comprehend the topic without having it rewritten before them. Accordingly, I have done so.  Please start again. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the yeah-sayer might benefit from improved consistency. If I may be allowed to quote you (and if you won't mind me saying "you", but it's shorter than lots of other things), you (Andrew Davidson) said above: "WP:DICDEF tells us to bring topics together by their meaning and the stone (unit) page seems to be best place to cover all this." Previously there was no content on this page to merge; what you have added could have been more effectively added directly to the stone (unit) article. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever in those additions is not already in Stone (unit) and is not supposition and original research could have been added there, where the poor reader would not be subjected to all that tendentious struggle to distinguish a customary stone as somehow separate from anything already discussed in Stone (unit). I've now done that. Neither readers nor future editors are helped by having two articles. NebY (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice that you have also created Legal stone as a redirect to customary stone. Do you plan to expand that if customary stone is deleted, so that we can go through this dance again? NebY (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Stone (unit). N ORTH A MERICA 1000 14:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that is already ✅. NebY (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As content has been merged from this page into that, deletion would now be improper — see WP:MAD for details. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the text has been merged, so no licensing issue would be created by deletion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was not using "merge" in the technical sense. I merely wished to point out that Stone (unit) continues to provide the reader with everything covered in customary stone, and more besides. NebY (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit to Stone (unit) copied material from the earlier edit to Customary stone. The image (which I had uploaded) is the same.  The formatting is identical.  The citation and its formatting is identical.  And the caption is a paraphrase.  It was NebY's stated intent to use material from one page on the other and this was done without attribution.  The edit history should therefore remain to provide a record of the original authorship and the sequence of events.  Deletion would obfuscate this to no purpose and so would be inappropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, all material is correctly credited to its original source, meaning that no licensing issues would be created by deletion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree and would challenge deletion on these grounds. There is no consensus for deletion here and nothing to be gained by such action as ordinary editing will suffice. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: No content to retain, and no reason to have a distinct article on this topic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep An important topic for those interested in commerical and social history. Useful for readers to have concrete examples of the sort of variations we had before standardization took off in the 19th century.  The excellent recent expansion by Andrew D demonstrates notability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:53, 12 February 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.