Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilogram per cubic metre


 * 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 procedural close. While it's clear that there is fairly strong consensus that most of these articles should be either deleted or redirected, this bundled AfD is a mess and it's impossible for a closer to sort through all of this and come to a conclusion. Bundled AfDs are great for situations when the same result will likely apply to all of the articles, which clearly isn't the case here. And to top it all off, the nominator tries to withdraw half of the articles from the AfD after they've already been discussed at length. I'd recommend nominating each of these articles separately and having a separate discussion about what to do with each one.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Kilogram per cubic metre

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per deletion discussion for Gram_per_cubic_metre, none of these other composite units, or the template page above them, are notable. PianoDan (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This nomination includes the following pages in addition to Kilogram per cubic metre:

I'll nominate the related templates separately. PianoDan (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Delete Gram per cubic centimetre. We do not need articles on multiple combinations of units just to state they exist and provide conversions. 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Even one specific unit is borderline. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tonne. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it doesn't make sense to me to redirect a unit of density to a unit of mass. PianoDan (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though the tonne is defined in terms of kilograms per cubic metre? I see. I'll just note that seems more pedantic that helpful to the typical reader. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Tonne ISN'T defined in terms of kilograms per cubic meter. It would be circular use a unit of mass as part of the definition of a unit of mass.  A tonne is the mass of a cubic meter of water at 4 C, but that's a definition of mass based on a unit of length. PianoDan (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A tonne is one cubic metre of water. The definitions are interrelated. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. A tonne is 1000 kg. And 1000 kg is approximately the mass of one cubic metre of water. The definitions are not interrelated. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A tonne is defined as a thousand kilograms.--Srleffler (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear - Srleffler and Dondervogel are right. I was not as clear as I intended.  It would be circular to use a unit of mass to define ITSELF. Defining a tonne (which is 2000 kilograms) in terms of kilograms per cubic meter for a cubic meter of substance, is that - defining kilograms in terms of kilograms.  Obviously the real definition of the tonne is what has been said - 2000 kilograms. PianoDan (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make sense to redirect a unit of density to a unit of mass.--Srleffler (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Density or create Units of density and redirect there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect kilogram per cubic metre, gram per cubic centimetre, and gram per litre to Density, as it's just possible that some specialized application might measure density using one of those. Delete metre squared per second because it's not a unit for one specific quantity, and matching quantities to the combinations of SI base units their dimensions happen to work out to is trivia. I mean, it would also be the SI unit of "specific action", but who cares? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To all those !voting redirect. All specific units of density including "Gram per cubic meter" are of equal value. That's extremely high for consistent actions for all the units. We obviously don't want the articles on these topics so the current redlinks of Gram per cubic metre and the redirects from other units at the same time are the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting one article, then redirecting the others and giving them (if they are lucky) inconsistent search results. Either we recreate Gram per cubic metre as a redirect or we delete everything. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I am making this argument because I have been influenced by a similar comment at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4 saying To all those !voting delete. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a redlink is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. that I have been mimicking that same comment to to bring about an argument in every debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel.arunabh (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the statement "[a]ll specific units of density ... are of equal value." Kilogram per cubic meter is the coherent unit of density in the SI system. See the BIPM publication The International System of Units (SI), section 1.4 where this is defined. Similarly gram per cubic centimetre is the coherent unit of density in the cgs system. If there were a mgs system of measurement in common use, gram per cubic metre would be the coherent unit of density in that system, as you well know. The issue with the latter's article was that there is no commonly used mgs system of measurement. --Srleffler (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When people calculate the density of a particular object, they do not care about what unit system they are using. They can even calculate in mg/m^3. And there are may equivalent units as well. I am not going to accept even one unit unless I get every possible unit. And this is not just on Wikipedia. Even in reality, I am a male, and I am attracted to my female friends. I will not accept anything that my male friends give me unless I get the same thing from my female friends as well. I have to be on 's side. Neel.arunabh (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's... not my side. I was arguing that none of THESE units are inherently notable, not that NO composite units are inherently notable.  It would be absurd, for example, to claim that Miles Per Hour isn't notable, as that article has plenty of reliable sources establishing notability.  Srleffler is making a good case that as the standard units of density in SI and cgs, kg/m^3 and g/cm^3 are inherently notable, and I certainly won't go to the mat defending deletion for those two. I don't understand your metaphor about friends at all. PianoDan (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am just saying that I will not accept one thing unless I get other things as well. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a WP:WHATABOUT argument.--Srleffler (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I really need have either all or none. will be a more helpful contributor than everyone here. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your several kind remarks about me in this debate but I have no special wisdom to offer here that others haven't already provided. I do think the encyclopaedic concept is density and someone searching for kg/m3 is probably looking for help with how to perform the arithmetic.—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that detail should be covered in density itself. Let me also hear from . Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being clueless--why was I pinged here? Hobit (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To let you know that we can get everything covered in the Density article itself. Or as suggests, we can create an article called Units of density and dedicate sections to SI units, CGS units, and other units.  Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm trying to figure out why I was pinged. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose deleting Kilogram per cubic metre and gram per cubic centimetre. These are the coherent units of density in two common systems of measurement. The former is specifically identified as such by the BIPM, and is therefore notable. Saying "Per deletion discussion for Gram_per_cubic_metre" is not sufficient. The issue there was different in that there is no commonly used system of measurement for which that is the coherent unit of density. (UCUM not being a system of measurement). I'm unsure about the other two articles. Metre squared per second is identified by BIPM as the coherent derived unit of kinematic viscosity, though. --Srleffler (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination for kilogram per cubic metre and gram per cubic centimetre, per Srleffler's valid argument. PianoDan (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really running out of breath and I really will never agree with the density articles. I have found some informative articles where "grams per cubic meter" is actually being used.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * And I will also ping my friend for more helpful suggestions as I do not agree with the current status or with the current contributors.  Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the BIPM reference should straightaway be added in the Density article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel.arunabh (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the fact that a unit is USED does not make it NOTABLE. Coverage of the unit makes it notable. For example, "Megagauss Oersted" is a unit often used in describing permanent magnets.  But the unit ITSELF is not particularly notable. PianoDan (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2021 (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.