Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megasecond


 * 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 redirect to Second. (non-admin closure) sst✈  03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Megasecond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The content of this "article" is mind boggling. The first paragraph is OK, but that could be adequately covered in Wiktionary. Then it descends into useless trivia. The "length of Napoleon's attempt at regaining power" in megaseconds. The "duration of Nazi Germany" in megaseconds. What is the point? Bazonka (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Kinda hilarious. Also kinda useless... Defintely doesn't deserve an article -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but it should move listing material to the page Time (Orders of magnitude) along from other related pages like kiloseconds and gigaseconds and expand the article to beyond just the definition, such as frequency and history of uses along with few common examples. Planet  Star  02:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what you want added to this article, nor what you think should be included in Time (Orders of magnitude) -- surely not this vast list of insignificant examples? I note that Time (Orders of magnitude) includes a whole (essentially trivial) section based on the nonexistent unit the annum, which I think could also usefully be deleted. (If you want the Latin for 'year' it's annus, as in annus mirabilis) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The article has no content other than the trivia section. Aamof, there is a very long sequence of SI units of time, generated productively with the standard sequence of multipliers kilo, mega, etc, but the fact that none of these is normally used, and that any meaning is the regular combination of the parts (prefix multiplier x second), means that there is no real point in even having a redirect. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. This is one of many such compilations of arbitrary examples, quite lacking in sources.  See Articles for deletion/1 metre. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, Aside from this brief piece from NPR, I could not find any discussion about this significance of Megaseconds in secondary sources. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that this topic fails WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Second (unit) and merge any content found to be of use. I see no particular need to delete entirely. LjL (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (comment) I think a redirect to Time (Orders of magnitude) would be better. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When considering the current content of the article, yeah. But that's an argument for merging its content there. The redirect itself should be the least-surprise path, and I think someone looking for a multiple of the Second unit should land at the primary unit. LjL (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and if this were something like "micropoiseuille" I would agree totally. But I cannot imagine anyone looking for "megasecond" who does not already understand (very well!) what "second" means. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Second and merge any useful content to Time (Orders of magnitude). ~Kvng (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. This is a plausible redirect, and some of the conversion factors (with eg other units of time, durations of orbits etc) may be useful. James500 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect- A redirect to Second is sensible, but the current content of the article is so terrible it should be deleted first to prevent any prospect of it being restored later. Reyk  YO!  08:47, 22 February 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.