Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimi (metric prefix)

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. Content appears to have been merged to Metric prefix#Double prefixes Nakon 01:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimi (metric prefix)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY -War wizard90 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources show that this word satisfies WP:GNG as a topic. The term has been mentioned at the dab dimi so no redirect is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary dicdef. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not merit an article. (There could be a list of all obsoleted bits of the metric system.) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Needs to be removed from the dab page too, as it is not present in the target article, but I'll leave it there for now in case someone finds a reliable source and adds it to Metric prefix where it would belong if verifiable. PamD 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be a legitimate prefix ("dimigramme" was once used in medical contexts). That would normally suggest a merge to Metric prefix (as PamD suggests), with a note on when the prefix died away. However, with no source other than the unreliable Cardarelli, I see no alternative to deletion. One wonders why this article was created in the first place. -- 120.23.173.98 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Metric prefix#Double prefixes. This was an abbreviation for decimilli which used by the French until a decree of 1961. See The Metric System, which explains this on page 34. Cardarelli is a French scientist and so may reasonably considered an authority on the matter. The derogatory references to this respectable author above seem quite outrageous and contrary to WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to ... other pages, including talk pages" Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. However, I would like to set your mind at rest: there is a convention in educated circles of referring to books by the name of the author. In this case, therefore, saying for example "Cardarelli is full of nonsense" is a criticism of a book, and a valid criticism at that, and not in any way derogatory towards the person. In fact it is entirely possible that if you could chat to the author you would find that he is actually quite angry, because the publisher got in some cheap labour to do the proof-reading (etc), and made a mess of what he intended to be a carefully edited work. In such a case criticism of the book would go hand in hand with sympathy for the author. (I prefer to guess that the "hat-trick" junk in particular was added outside M. Cardarelli's control.) Imaginatorium (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not merge. 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)[reply]

Comment @David Eppstein: We tried a bundled AfD, but it was closed as "no consensus", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit). -War wizard90 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Metric prefix#Double prefixes. The prefix is documented in e.g. The metric system : a critical study of its principles and practice, translated in 1969 from Esprit et bon usage du systeme metrique by Maurice Danloux-Dumesnils, 1965. -- 120.23.163.33 (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google, that book has a single mention of "dimi". However, WP:N requires a lot more in order to justify an article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not justifying an article; it's justifying a deletion. The motion being discussed is that the special delete function be used to remove this page and its history from view. I'm not seeing any reason to do this when there's the better alternative of amending the page to redirect to a relevant section in a more general article. Our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE, is to save what is useful rather than wantonly using the delete function to destroy everything. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here [1] is Cardarelli himself commenting on a QA board on the obsoleting of the myriagramme etc, being not adopted by the CGPM (is that 1963). So they should go in a list "Obsolete" in the metric prefixes. There really isn't any point I think in a redirect, but if you add all the bytes and hours UKW is going to expend on this, a redirect saves humanity a lot. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that this is now included in Metric prefix#Double prefixes, there's no further reason for this page to exist. PianoDan (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.