Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-metrication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was No consensus, default to keep. Stifle 14:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-metrication

This was on prod, but it seems controversial to me. There have been some POV issues, and perhaps there's no need for a separate "anti" article, but I think there needs to be a discussion on this. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Original PROD deletion reason by me: No references, no evidence of notability or a coherent organisation; appears only to be presentation of personal POV, not an organisation in the wider world - that is, there's no evidence given in the article that it's actually anything other than a POV rant - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You can't get rid of a whole movement, and the associated controversy, by just slapping an AfD on it. I think it's a bad idea to ever slap an AfD on a long article with lots of editors over a long period of time; those editors have said that it is in fact a good article.--Prosfilaes 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What movement? There's no evidence given in the article there is in fact a coherent movement - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and cleanup, POV warring is not a justification for deletion, no matter how severe. That aside, the article does not cite its sources, so it needs some sources. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I marked this as PROD because there's no evidence even named in the article of an organisation. This article doesn't describe someone's attributed views at all - it's pretty much a POV rant arguing the issue itself. There's no article there. If there is, rewrite it to address the apparent lack of a reason for it to exist, don't keep it in the hope one might appear one day - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill it with a meteryardstick, this so-called article is an obvious POV fork of metrication, is completely unreferenced original research, heavily laden with crackpot theories, and is a rough equivalent of an open-source blog. I say this as a mile-per-gallon American, I might add. — Mar. 22, '06 [16:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete: I'm tempted to simply say "nn, delete", but since that is one of the AFD habits which annoys me most…this article completely fails to establish what it is actually about. There is nothing about the history of "Anti-metrication" or who espouses it, it is simply a rant against Cro-magnon reactionaries who prefer old-style units. The fact that it also fails to cite any references is simply the icing on the cake. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Woot. Total lack of sources, only anecdotal evidence, there are kilos of reasons to delete this. If there does exist a valid article somewhere under there, let it be presented to DRV once this one is gone. - brenneman{L} 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd happily withdraw my original nomination (does this count as my nom, as it was brought here as a contested PROD?) if they could just, uh, point me at an organization of this name. Or one doing such a job. That's notable enough to have third-party references. I don't ask much. Really - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you DELETE this article, you need to DELETE the METRICATION article also... Otherwise you are DEFINITELY biased in your POV. This article keeps being being re-written in a pro-metric biased POV (EXAMPLE: "because of perceived flaws in the metric system", tell me that's not biased! When the flaw exists in the Imperial system it's a flaw... When it exists in the metric system, it's perceived!?!?!) The fact of the matter is, any article dealing with this subject is going to be controversial and if Wikipedia deletes all controversial articles, then it's a pretty lame source of information. And it that's the case, I want to see Metric System, SI, and Metrication deleted also because they are all extremely biased! arfon 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC) - KEEP - This whole argument is Assinine! This is an article descibing the Anti-metrifcation movement and it's reasons. It's assinine to expect anything BUT A anti-metric POV on it! It's a biased POV when you describe the movement and then add words to make people think that the movement is wrong and it's people are stupid. arfon 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see why the metrication article can't also contain information on anti-metrication. And we don't delete articles because they're biased. The issue here is mostly with the lack of verification. See WP:V and WP:OR. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't talk nonsense. What if your friends heard you saying stuff like this? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You have spectacularly misunderstood WP:NPOV, and aren't too strong on WP:V either - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article just needs cleanup. Seano1 17:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As I asked, what is there to clean up? There's no coherent group the article is actually about. If I'm wrong, please show it in the article! - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no sources cited; pure OR. It started off being biased original research: why a few editors think anti-metrication is silly. Then it became truly absurd original research: why one editor thinks anti-metrication is our only saviour against the Devil's Units. There is the potential for a good article here, if we had, say, a well-sourced description of the history of metrication and those silly people who opposed it — but this isn't it, and in any case there's no reason why it needs to be here and not as part of Metrication or, if necessary, a better-named spinoff. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep obviously needs several tags (cleanup, sources, POV etc.) but this article does capture a genuine set of arguments that those against metrification use. I wouldn't call it a "movement" because there is (AFAIK) no organized group with this agenda. Some record of these arguments is worth keeping in an encyclopedia. fuddlemark's (MarkGallagher's) suggestion of incorporating some of this material into an "Arguments against Metrification" section of the main Metrification article has merits and may be a good compromise. Gwernol 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you can find anything resembling a verifiable third-party source for this stuff - 'cos at the moment it is actually a few individuals' ramblings - it would be most welcomed - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I can find references to the British "Metric Martyrs" who are metrification resisters: [1], [2], [3] etc. My personal POV is that these are loonies, but I think they do deserve coverage. The more I think about it the more I think merging this into the Metrification section makes sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwernol (talk • contribs)
  • Delete While I believe the movement itself may be notable (meaning: notable if cited) I don't think a POV fork of Metrication is called for here. Opposition to metrication is already discussed in that article. If the discussion in metrication is not sufficient, expand that rather than creating a new article. --Craig Stuntz 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a POV fork. The resistance to metrication is clearly an issue (though poorly described and completely unsourced here) that needs to be discussed within the Metrication article. Fan1967 18:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork. Verified, NPOVed arguments can be merged to metrication but Merkin redneck arguments basically saying "I don't like anything from yer darn-tootin' ferrin Yoo-row-pean Communist countries" have to be deleted. JIP | Talk 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Dude, I agree with you, but please avoid the over-generalization based on the occasional American Idiot. Most of us aren't cowboy rednecks, just like few Arabs are terrorists, none of the Jews that I know are involved in an international conspiracy, and most Finns are not---um---whatever the Finnish stereotype is. Oh yeah, delete, btw. youngamerican (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that. But anyone, especially Americans, insulting the metric system makes me angry. I stand by my delete vote, though. As for Finnish stereotypes, the Swedes call us silent and impolite, the Estonians call us heavy drinkers, and everyone else calls us Nazis. JIP | Talk 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I see where you are coming from. i am a bit sensitive on over-generalizations of America and the idea of collective responsibility for the mistakes of my leaders and/or dumb things said by the fringe. I get a little touchy since, when I lived in Europe, I had to spend about 2 hours a week defending myself from drunken accusations made by people that did not approve of NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia or the music of N'Sync. As for a reason for why I vote delete: pov fork, nn movement, and other reasons given. youngamerican (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, looks like a POV fork to me. I agree there's not enough salvagable content here, so delete or just turn it into a redirect to metrication. Friday (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:POVFORK per the above votes. Sandstein 19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • SOURCES HAVE BEEN ADDED - Lack of sources is no longer an excuse to delete. 207.200.54.134 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did not notice this vote until I saw it in the contributions list of arfon. I invite people to look at his/her contributions and those of the similar user 207.200.54.134. The metrication article still has plenty of room for more information and I do not think each article describing a process needs another describing an anti-process (whatever that might be). I am watching the comments and considering whether to vote to delete. In the meantime, please look at the edits being made to Metrication by those two user accounts. bobblewik 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-Comment - I freely admit that I am both 207.200.54.134 and Arfon. I quite often forget to log in. Deleting FACTS should not be a vote, this should be a discussion as to the merits of the article. I bet if I went to Slashdot, I could scare up enough people to vote to shut down the whole wikipedia! 207.200.54.134 00:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC) aka user:arfon
  • SO LET ME GET THIS RIGHT - There is an article (version as of 19:47, 22 March 2006) which so far no one has shown any incorrect information in that people now want deleted because it deals with one-side of an argument and therefore has a POV!?!? arfon 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a case of having a POV. It's a case of being a POV. If you removed the POV stuff, you'd have nothing left. And, at the moment, the POV stuff is so absurd as to warrant nuking from orbit before anybody reads it and comes away with the impression that people who believe this stuff edit Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "the POV stuff is so absurd as to warrant nuking from orbit" Really? which part? You're not very specific. 207.200.54.134 17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Damn straight this is an informative article. POV is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. If this is a notable topic then there should be an article about it. Ashibaka tock 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, POV is a deletion issue when an article may be a POV fork. I don't think anyone is suggesting that opposition to metrication shouldn't be covered at all. To me the issue is where and how it should be covered. Can you think of a really good reason why opposition to metrication should not be in the metrication article? --Craig Stuntz 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant, original research, irreparably biased. Don't get me wrong: If this article was about the anti-metrication movement (if there is anything resembling an organized movement), and if it was written to provide information about the history of that movement, its supporters and opponents, their attempts to influence legislation, standards bodies, etc., it might be salvageable. Or it could describe how the transition to the metric system was accomplished across the world, to what extent this caused confusion, consumer price increases, etc. However, as it is, the article is at best a blatantly biased and incomplete comparison between the metric system and a narrow set of alternatives. Best to scrap it and start over somewhere else: I'd much rather see a properly sourced article on the history of metrication. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Centikeep notable sillyness. Eivindt@c 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-iteration of this vote concept- Deleting FACTS should not be a vote, this should be a discussion as to the merits of the article. You guys are looking at an article that is about one side of an argument and then you get mad when your POV (e.g. "perceived flaws in the metric system") is corrected with facts. Now, you claim that an article about one side of an argument has a POV!?!?! OF COURSE IT DOES!! IT'S ABOUT A MOVEMENT ON ONE SIDE OF AN ARGUMENT!!!!!!! DUH!!!! 207.200.54.134 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (aka user:arfon)
    • You have utterly misunderstood WP:NPOV; in fact, you've misunderstood it more spectacularly than anybody before you. Well done. What you're proposing is called sympathetic point of view, and although there are projects out there that follow this idea (Google for Wikinfo), on Wikipedia it's anathema. Please go away and read WP:NPOV and don't return until you've understood it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There may well be room for an NPOV on anti-metrication based on verifiable references. However, this is not it. We have articles based on various forms of political, religious and social points of view. This does not mean that they should either advocate or denigrate the subject of the article. Rather, they should aim to present the reader with information based on reliable sources and written from a neutal point of view. Delete unless rewritten to meet such standards. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • FIXED POV - Article now REPORTS (3rd person). Opening paragraph may be considered by some to have a POV but it is 100% FACTUAL, changing it will make it POV. arfon 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not 100% factual, and it is not completely sourced. The stuff about French wine, for example, reads like you've made it up ("could only be explained by"), as does "unit confusion" (a case of "many people believe" = "I believe", or WP:WEASEL). The sources themselves are very sad indeed; one of the best is an ABC Radio interview with an English teacher (!) who rattled off a few "facts" he heard somewhere. The vast majority of sources (certainly every one I looked at) came from someone who was not themselves an expert, and who cited no sources of their own. So: it is still biased, still original research, and still unlikely to be wholly factual (although nobody has argued for deletion on that particular criterion). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I followed the Metrication article to source it therefore, it's sourced the same way. If the sources are inadequate for this article, then it's just as innacurate for metrication and MANY other Wikipedia articles.
      • "It is not 100% factual" point out the errors, don't just make a broad statement and expect me to accept it.
        • The article states that the fact that French wine wasn't immediately switched from 720mL bottles to 1L bottles "can only be explained by" popular resistance to the Metric system (that the English once had a measure of a similar size is apparently relevant, although the article hints but won't say why). It also says that the bottles were later increased to 750mL, and includes all this "information" in a section about how Metrication inevitably causes traders to try to rip-off their customers ... by reducing the size of their measures. This not only fails the laugh test, but is self-contradictory besides. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • French Wine- This is wikipedia, a group effort, the French Wine information was written by someone else.
      • Unit Confusion- "reads like you've made it up" or not, the unit confusion information is one of the anti-metric arguments.
        • Fair dinks? One of the arguments they really, truly make is "it's too easy to confuse mills and litres"? Crikey. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "The vast majority of sources (certainly every one I looked at) came from someone who was not themselves an expert, and who cited no sources of their own." So how do you become an expert in metrication? Is a PhD in Mertication required or will a Night-school certificate suffice?
      • 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, let's just say it's not by setting up a Tripod website transcribing rumours you think you may have heard down the pub, although the music was very loud, and you'd had a few of ... strewth, what'll we call these glasses once they outlaw pints? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with metrication and Redirect. Haikupoet 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. A totally new, completely rewritten article that neutrally reports published sources can be re-created without prejudice at any time. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would merge and redirect to metrification. There was a big push for metrification in the U.S. in the 1970s (which obviously failed,) but as far as I know (or can tell from this article or the metrification article) it didn't fail because of an equally organized movement on the other side. Thus, I see no need for this separate article. Grandmasterka 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. In its current shape, it's a POV fork. bogdan 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. The main points of this article could be turned into a single paragraph and put under Metrication#United_States. Pengo 11:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This article deals with more than the US, the British Metric Martyrs are very much involved. 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


  • So far many people have said that this should be deleted due to it having a POV but no one has specifically pointed out what parts are POV (and are not factual). What parts are POV and are not factual???? If POV is all that is required to get an article deleted, I call for the deletion of every article that mentions the metric system and the US (because they are all POV and full of crap!) 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the article espouses a point of view (that is, it not only explains the side, but takes a side), is not why it's being discussed for deletion.
The fact that it exists separately from the Metrication article (apparently) so that it can use bias is. Even if the information is correct, that is also not the issue, but rather, it's verifiability. Information has to be backed by outside sources, not original conclusions. See WP:OR.
If other articles are biased, simply fix them. Don't complain about things you can fix yourself. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly the article offers insight and provides links to such groups. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.242.93.35 (talk • contribs) .
  • SO FAR, there has been many calls to DELETE this article and yet NOT ONCE has anyone, who has claimed that it's biased, pointed out one single instance of POV (let alone any that are untrue). Every claim for deletion just says POV without any examples... The "DELETE DUE TO POV" claims have included such descriptions as "it is simply a rant against (sic) Cro-magnon reactionaries who prefer old-style units" and contains comments like "But anyone, especially Americans, insulting the metric system makes me angry" which pretty much shows that the DELETE requests are coming from fairly baised people... arfon 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not biased, simply non-American. Here, metrication is a non-issue, and it's kinda scary to find even one person who passionately believes that it's a Bad Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As for merging it with Metrication, will just start this all over again when metric sympathetic people re-write the section and anti-metric people re-write it again. The claims of the section being POV will return. arfon 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article seems to have difficulty deciding whether metrication (or is that 'metrification'?) is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. It wallows like a rowboat in a typhoon, and laughable POVs such as "Another significant effect of metrication is that, on its introduction, it divides generations from each other, creating mutual incomprehension between children and their parents. This could obviously assist the sort of cultural revolutions which accompany invasion, subjugation, the fall of monarchies or the breaking of ties with former colonial powers" suggest a full rewrite is necessary. Denni ☯ 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "...whether metrication (or is that 'metrification'?)..." - The article was originally Anti-metriFIcation until an editor decided that Mertication was easier to locate in searches. The explanation is on the talk page. arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "laughable POVs such as 'Another significant effect of metrication is that, on its introduction, it divides generations from each other..'" Believe it our not, I agree with you on that one! It is wrong, it seems to be the opposite. Old and Young (in Britian) tend to agree on anti-metrification (yes, I can provide a source). I'll go in and fix that part. (no, I wasn't the original author of that contribution). arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see that source. It's bound to be a laugh, if nothing else. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "This article seems to have difficulty deciding whether... ...is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing..." -That's what happens when you go far a NPOV. arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, no, it's not. If you have problems with NPOV, may I suggest you Google for "Wikinfo", a project specifically designed to attract people with your opinions? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean up, add sources and revert to its former name: Metrication arguments and counter-arguments. The article has gone down-hill of late but it's not unsaveable. I believe it was a mistake to move it to Antimetrication: such a title invites POV. There is opposition to metrication which is worth documenting and there's enough to warrent a seperate article rather than merging back to Metrication. Jimp 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or barring that, Merge with Metrication. Anti-metrication movements have been significant in some countries undergoing metrication; anti-metrication arguments (if not an organized movement) have been particularly successful in the USA, considering that moves in the late 1970s for the US to go to the metric system have been completely derailed, making the US the only major country not to use metric measurement. —This unsigned comment was added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Although the article has issues, I think it's not beyond fixing. I also think this is probably too much to cover in Metrication--it looks like a POV fork now, but it would be acceptable as a content fork. Probably move back to old name per Jimp. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I did a little NPOVing and made some citation requests for statements that looked like they might be OR. Some of them might be supported by the references, but it needs footnotes or something so the reader knows where to look. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems sort of biased to have a whole article on metrification and not one on the counter. Seems like alot of people just don't like a differing opinion and want this article gone...Citizen1984 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This comment is the first contribution to Wikipedia from Citizen1984 (talk · contribs). --Craig Stuntz 14:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's really not unfair, considering that Metrication has a section on opposition, and no one is advocating removing that. We don't have to have an article on anti-everything--it's usually more sensible to cover opposition in the main article, unless it's just too long. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I second what Nickel Shoe says. Metrication is a significant process with enormous cultural, historical, scientific, technological, etc. importance. It therefore deserves an article. The opposition to it is also significant. The question is whether there is room in the main article to cover this opposition. It seems that there is not. Thus we have the article Anti-metrication (which, as I mention, would be better renamed). It's not a question of fairness because neither article should be taking sides. Jimp 15:40, 26 March 2006 (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.