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 speedy keep. nominator also changed to keep JForget 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Arabic units of measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

A search for reference, found little to no support for any of the content of this article. Yes there Ancient Arabic units of measurement, but for most of the units mentioned here no references are found. See example reference in article, what is found has no support for the measurements as documented. The farsakh is the only thing I find close and even that does not match references. Removal on non-referenced content per WP:V would result in a article that no longer meets the expectations of the title. Prod was removed so bringing to AfD Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although the topic is notable for its own article, an unsourced article is dubious, and keeping a demonstrably inaccurate article makes an entire encyclopedia dubious. Looking through the history of this one, it was created back in the "It's none of your damn business where I got this from" days of Wikipedia, and had no source at all until the nominator (Jeepday) located one: ([1]) would be the heart of a good article as to some of the measurements, and if someone wants to attempt a rescue, in which case, move it to userspace until it can be something that doesn't say 2+2=7. The Encyclopedia Britannica used to have an article called "Measures and Weights" that converted units of measure into English and metric equivalents. Rather than a clean up, this one needs to be replaced with something brand new from the rescue factory. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please substantiate "demonstrably incorrect". So far as I can see the highly reliable reference that I have given below covers everything in the article. Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deletion of an article is generally interpreted as implying that re-creation of the article is strongly discouraged. That would certainly not be appropriate here. As to the sourcing, we need to take into account the systemic bias against cultures using a non-Latin script. If we search for one specific transcription of a unit, then we are only going to find those occurrences that use exactly the same transcription. By simply searching for "arabic units" in Google Books I found the Encyclopaedia of scientific units, weights, and measures, which appeared with Springer and appears to cover everything that is in the article in a single table. Hans Adler 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reliable source (François Cardarelli, ed. Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights, and Measures: Their SI Equivalences and Origins (Springer 2003) p77-78) at least for units of length, area, and volume. If someone is willing to replace the existing content with something verifiable-- even to the extent of blanking the page and replacing it with the two links to Google books-- then I'd support a keep. Otherwise, we should put a note up saying "This is totally unreliable and should not be taken seriously by someone consulting an encyclopedia". The first requirement of reference information, even greater than that it should be verifiable, is that it be correct. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell nothing needs to be replaced. The present content is backed up by the new reference. Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone rewrites it before this AFD closes: incorrect information does not belong in Wikipedia, and the only ways to get rid of an entirely incorrect article are complete rewrites and deletion. We sometimes delete articles for reasons irrelevant to notability (especially through speedy deletion, but not exclusively), so it's not at all uncommon to encounter a situation when there's no problem with recreating an article that was (altogether properly) deleted. I don't see how keeping a mangled article will help the encyclopedia more than deletion will. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Vote changed, see below Why on earth delete if the problem is a lack of referrences? -- Egil (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that Wikipedia:Verifiability allows for the removal of questionable unreferenced content. Lack of references is one of the symptoms, the problem is that the content of the article cannot be validated; it is extremely likely that none of it is accurate, and the entire article content is fabricated. This article was reviewed by Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles prior to being posted for AfD and no references supporting the article content could be found. The question in this AfD is should the article be stripped to a sinlgle line about farsakh, or should it be completely deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. As a flashback, I remember this article was created by splitting up a far too big article on historical weights and measures, and I'm sure some of the original content was quite questionable. If you have researched this and not being able to verify, then this article has no value. I will thus change my vote to Delete. Egil (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of you actually compare the reference with the current content of the article? What does the article say that doesn't follow immediately from the new reference? Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ((trout)) I don't understand why people here are voting for deletion of an article based on speculations that the content may be incorrect, after someone has found a Springer book that backs up the content. Hans Adler 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom voting Keep, thanks to the work of User:Hans Adler who found and added references supporting the article content. When the reference was first posted here it did not open as readable for me, but the reference on the article clearly goes to a book supporitin the content as written (still room to improve as always). My Orginal research was based on the words for the units, which came up mostly empty Hans focused on the subject a search term and found a great reference. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, it seems you originally missed my explanation concerning different transcriptions. I think it's important to keep this issue in mind in order to avoid systemic bias against cultures that use a non-latin script. As it happens, my work didn't consist in more than entering "Arabic units of measurement" in Google books and looking at the first hit. The trout is on the barbecue. Who wants some? Hans Adler 12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close in that nominator has withdrawn nomination. Changing vote to Keep and praising Hans Adler as well. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2010 (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.