Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micri


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Micri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As for dimi this does not warrant an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources show that this word satisfies WP:GNG as a topic. I cannot even find a source to verify the dictionary definition in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: not included in Metric prefix which appears to be a solid and well-sourced article; not listed in OED (while "kilo-" as a prefix is listed); no source other than the dubious Cardarelli.  Pam  D  10:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Lacta. Pam  D  10:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Regardless of the reliability of Cardarelli, something that can be sourced only to a single line of a single table in a single book is not notable. (The same comment applies to all three of the units micri, lacta, and dimi, which should probably have been merged into a single AfD.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Once again we see people rushing to delete something which they do not seem to understand. Accusations that Cardarelli is "dubious" are ill-founded in such circumstances.  As for this case, a quick search soon turns up another source: A Dictionary of Scientific Units.  If, as it seems, the prefix was only used with the erg, then perhaps we might merge into that page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the function of your first sentence? I proposed this, saying "...does not warrant an article". Can you explain what this suggests I "do not understand"? And you do? Anyway, it would be more sensible to include a list of obsolete, propsed, abandoned (etc) prefixes in the metrix prefix article, even if "micri-" was only ever suggested for ergs. Notice incidentally that the source you cite, though not quite as simplistic as Cardarelli's offering, is still from something called a "Dictionary". WP does not aspire to be a dictionary, so it should not model its articles on dictionary entries. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Erg as verified per, , . The topic does not appear to have enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficiently notable. PianoDan (talk) 16:11, 17 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.