Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll (unit)


 * 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 List of obsolete units of measurement. A listing at the disambiguation page roll was added as suggested below. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Roll (unit)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY -War wizard90 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is bad but the topic is notable.TheMagikCow (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please give an example of how it is notable, rather than just saying it is notable? One reference to a questionable Cardelli encyclopedia does not establish WP:N, also, how will this be expanded beyond a dictionary definition? -War wizard90 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps we could tackle these unit article with some bold merging, rather than all these AfDs. -- 120.23.39.0 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment We tried that already, it was closed as no consensus due to too many articles. See Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) -War wizard90 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind, just realized you meant merging the pages and bypassing the AfD process all together, I wouldn't mind that but given that some of these units have been controversial I felt it was best for each article to be discussed on it's own merits. I'm too involved at this point, but if another editor wants to be bold and merge or redirect these articles, I for one won't stop them. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars. The encyclopedia "...combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This entry is such that one would find in an almanac. No prejudice against a merge somewhere. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would also support a merge/redirect to List of obsolete units of measurement. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If the nominator had included the definition in Wiktionary I would have had more sympathy with this AfD. As it is it seems merely destructive. Of course if the information is included somewhere else in WP (and this seems a good idea) a redirect would suffice. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Feel free to add it to Wiktionary where it belongs, what does my adding it to Wiktionary (where I have never contributed or edited before) have anything to do with this AfD? It's not destructive, WP:NOTDICTIONARY is pretty clear, and this article falls right into nothing but a dictionary definition with a single source. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Another Cardarelli unit. Apparently this comes from this passage in the book: "1 roll = 24 oz". That's it. Is that enough for an article? There is this, about "Forgotten British and Irish units", which states that 1 roll was 24 oz in Bedale, a market town in North Yorkshire. So that's one place. Also this, about antique butter molds in California, according to which a mold (or roll) could be 1/2, 1, or 2 pounds, or variable. So it looks to me like, yes, butter was sold in rolls, but less evidence that it was always 24 oz. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Cardarelli all by itself is just not enough for notability. Margin1522 has done his best, but I just don't see it as enough. PianoDan (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, but perhaps make a dab page entry at Roll pointing to List of obsolete units of measurement where it can be sourced via OED (not just the dubious Cardarelli) as 24 ounces -  in OED it's defined (7(a)) as "A (usually small) quantity of a soft substance formed into a cylindrical or spherical mass.", but one of the examples, from 1896, is "Ireland sells its butter by the cask and firkin; England, by the pound, and ‘roll’ of 24 ounces, the stone, and the hundredweight."  Is that enough for an article? No. Is it enough for an entry in that list? Perhaps.  Pam  D  23:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Pam on this one, no one is going to search for "Roll (unit)" making a redirect pointless, but a dab page entry at Roll with a link to List of obsolete units of measurement, makes much more sense. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of obsolete units of measurement. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge to List of obsolete units of measurement per above, especially evidence of available sources presented by Margin1522: topic does not meet WP:N. Shanata (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY means dictionary entries belong at Wiktionary. If someone finds some encyclopedic information with references showing notability (per WP:GNG), a suitable article can be created. The suggestion by PamD to create an entry at the dab Roll is good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 11 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.