Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drill and tap size chart


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Drill and tap size chart

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Massive number of errors in metric sizes, the chart does not agree with published lists The drill sizes for metric taps are incorrect, they do not agree with published industry lists: http://www.newmantools.com/tapdrill.htm http://www.shender4.com/metric_thread_chart.htm http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/tapdrill.htm  --Janke | Talk 18:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: As tempting as it is to say "speedy keep" for the nominator not advancing a valid rationale for deletion, I do question whether or not this chart is encyclopedic. It looks like a pure copy of information available in other sources, with no encyclopedic context whatsoever. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if there had been just a few errors, I'd have corrected them. But, it looks like all the metric sizes are wrong, comparing with industry lists... so fixing this would be a major undertaking. I don't think WP should publish inaccurate info. --Janke | Talk 05:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the naive opinion here, but this chart, though difficult to understand at first, is the only one I've found that enumerates both metric and imperial size drills and threads, and all in one place. It's a pity that errors have been found, but if those could be fixed, I hope 'potentially very useful' is a good enough criterion to keep it around. --Butchwax 19:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is, correct tables are very easily found with a google search. Why keep a list with all metric measurements wrong? --Janke | Talk 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you, I understood your points from the initial dialog. My points were:  (1) 'if those [errors] can be fixed', why not keep the useful table; and (2) a single table enumerating both metric and imperial sizes is not easy to find with a google search, which is why I value this table.  I can see where I was unclear the first time, my apologies for making you repeat. --Butchwax 04:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All the referred tables (and above comments?) are for tap and through-hole sizes of bolts. I needed to know the diameter of a #59 bit. Wiki's wire gage table only goes up to #40. The references in that article are not nearly as useful as this table. It is "encyclopedic" because it brings together the bolt and wire worlds in one (very useful) place. I urge correction of errors and retention of Table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VogelJS (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete after some consideration. I still believe that the original rationale for deletion is an editorial matter and not a matter for deletion. However, this chart has zero encyclopedic context. "It's useful" is actually not a valid rationale for keeping an article. Additionally, a couple of the comments above lead me to believe that this chart is a synthesis of multiple sources available elsewhere, which is not allowed as it is considered original research. There may be another wiki or wikis out there that would accept this content, but as far as I can tell this is not suitable for Wikipedia. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This table may be a 'synthesis' because it is a compilation of other sources, but it is not a synthesis in the sense of the linked WP article.  The purpose of the compilation was not to 'imply a conclusion' or 'advance a position'.  See this article about compiling information.  I admit (again) that wishing to keep this around because it's useful is a naive position.  However, there are other pages I use that are quite similar, e.g. Comparison_of_AMD_processors, another page of tables with data compiled from other sources.  It was nominated for deletion in 2008, but the debate was about redundancy, and even under scrutiny, other arguments from this discussion that could have applied to that page were not advanced.  An argument that still stands for this page's deletion is the claim that the metric numbers are incorrect, but this could be fixed.  I'm afraid I don't understand the argument about 'encyclopedic context', but would appreciate a pointer to an explanation of the term.  --Butchwax 17:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Basic data about important things in the world is encyclopedic. It isn't OR, it isn't SYN, it is just the assembly of facts. The policy regarding "useful" is NOT MANUAL ". While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." with the explanatory footnote "Also, in the main namespace, describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not". This is not an instruction manual. It's information about objects, just like an article about a geographic region is information about objects, or information about breeds of dogs is information about objects. Looked at another way, its like the table of an alphabet.  This could be included within an article with a more conventional title, but it's still clear enough. Let's not get overly legalistic. The fundamental reason for having content is, after all, that people are going to use it. We're not an abstract exercise. Being useful to the readers is what we're here for--the only restriction is we are useful in the way of providing information.  There is no sort of information that is not potentially encyclopedic if it's important enough and written properly. (and what does " encyclopedic " mean, except, whatever it is we want to have in WP? We make our own rules.)


 * Keep This is useful information, or would be if it were accurate. Errors of themselves don't warrant deletion. I too have had difficulty finding this information elsewhere. Mcewan (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree: this is useful information, or would be if it were accurate. Errors of themselves don't warrant deletion. I too have had difficulty finding this information elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.73.30 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This article was intended to replace the so-called accurate results from Google searches with a single source (after becoming very frustrated with not being able to find a unified source for drill sizes etc.) The metric errors seem to have been introduced here but I think this was well intentioned, and frankly likely the result of using another internet source incorrectly. With fixes and updates, this page is incredibly important and encyclopedic as a comparison to different hole sizes and drill uses. As for the encyclopedic content, please compare to something like Orders of magnitude (length). If you'd like, I could add in some standard items (such as spark plugs, or the types of screws used in the Golden Gate Bridge) but I really don't think this information is necessary or useful beyond just the sizes. Coolhandscot (talk) 16:57, 11 June 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.