Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demal


 * 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 merge to Mole (unit). MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Demal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:DICDEF of defunct measure. Literally nothing else to say, but was deprodded to "improve article." Created by a user whose 2 edits (of 5) were to create this, and the other three edits to another article were reverted. Hopefully a SNOW delete, because this one is (and was) an uncontroversial delete. MSJapan (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What are your grounds for nominating this article for deletion besides the unit of measure being obsolete and the editor involved having edits reverted? Units of measure are encyclopedic and we have many; ones that are obsolete become history like the inch, psi etc. will in the future, but I doubt they get deleted then. AfD is meant to discuss the future of articles and I find it a bit strange that you call for SNOW deletion in the nomination... you don't want the discussion? I did a first quick search for sources and found those so that can't be the reason for nomination? DeVerm (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:DICDEF was unclear? What else can possibly be said that isn't already duplicated in a dictionary? MSJapan
 * The criticism that the current article is a "dicdef" is valid, but precisely the sort of thing that a dictionary is not going to go into is the reason for the existence of this unit, which was a valid justification from 1901 to 1964. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk) 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nomination is based upon the thought that an obsolete unit of measure does not belong in Wikipedia but should go to the dictionary instead. I suggest there is no consensus for that and there is nothing to prevent the article to become like that of other obsolete units of measure that we have and clearly belong in Wikipedia. As an example I would bring forward Cubit or any other entry on List of obsolete units of measurement. WP:DICDEF is clear about this: a dictionary is for a word, an idiom, or a term and a unit of measurement is not that and clearly material for the encyclopedia. This is why all the units of measurement are in Wikipedia. DeVerm (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge: into Mole_(unit) - I changed my vote after contemplating Imaginatorium's point of view and reading the Mole_(unit) article. Even though a mole is not a unit of concentration, a mole per volume is and this is an existing section of the article. I tried to find more detail about the Demal but it is hard to make it into a decent article, if not impossible without access to historic documentation. DeVerm (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I despair sometimes. This is a "dicdef", true; it would be much better if there was an article (which I could understand easily) explaining the whole business of molar concentrations, and mentioning the demal as an obsolete term, related to the varying definition of the litre. But WP is stuck on "one word, one article" (yes, in theory it isn't, but in practice it is). So perhaps we should just copy (modulo wikilawyering) the sizes.com article on demal, which already does it better. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please do! There's a copyright on that page, and the unambiguous copyvio would solve the problem. :)  Seriously though, we have an article on molar concentration.  I'm very leery of tertiary sources; I can't tell what part of that sizes.com article is actually from the sources cited and what's WP:OR, especially when it comes to usage. MSJapan (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not quite, because "modulo wikilawyering" means a copy of the information which is not a "copyvio". But anyway: should a reader of Wikipedia be able to find information about the "demal" (in other words general notability): I think yes. Is this best done by having an article "demal": I think no. Ideally, the relevant article, I suppose molar concentration, should have a section "Units", which mentions the current/standard units, and also historical and (e.g. US-batty) other units. Or actually, perhaps it should go in Mole_(unit) under "Related units". Yes, I think I will vote now...


 * Merge: into Mole_(unit) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say your choice is better, as molar concentration is already loaded down with calculations and so forth that we don't have for demal. However, I think I'll go find a chemist; maybe I can get that. MSJapan (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - reminds me of the drama around the importation of some book of obsolete units (see Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867 and hunt the links if you care). No comment on the merits. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge into Molar concentration or into Mole_(unit). A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows other sources discussing this unit. I added three reliable sources and expanded the article beyond a dictionary definition. The sources don't discuss the unit in enough depth to pass notability thresholds, but there is enough verifiable material for a short section on this minor but interesting story in the history of conductivity measurement. Indeed, you can still buy demal-quantified calibration products. As a unit of concentration, it makes more sense to merge it into Molar concentration, but I'd be fine with it going into Mole_(unit); the important thing is to preserve verifiable material per our policy WP:PRESERVE. --Mark viking (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2016 (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.