Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard (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 keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard (unit)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This unit of measurement probably doesn't exist. Of the three sources currently in the article, the third doesn't mention the subject, the second uses the word "standard" as an adjective while talking about something else, and the first is a book full of sloppy errors and hilarious misreadings. I did a search and can find no indication that this ever existed. Reyk _YO! 15:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a search term, it's an arsehole to search for though. ——SN54129 15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes. But being able to combine it with "Pittsburgh" and "firewood" helped. I'm pretty confident that I didn't just get buried in a mountain of false positives. Reyk _YO! 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into Petrograd Standard which is the same thing and certainly existed as a common measure of timber in places like Britain. Petrograd is another name for St. Petersburg. It's not clear how Pittsburg comes into this and it's probably just a misprint or misreading of Petersburg. Andrew D. (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain which information from this page you would add to Petrograd Standard? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article to explain the matter more fully and so have revised my !vote to that below. As the Petrograd standard was one of many such standards, any merger should be into this page, as it is more general. I find that the Pittsburgh reference is in multiple sources and so we should retain this aspect pending further investigation. Andrew D. (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's an even worse attempt to describe the "Petrograd standard" than Petrograd Standard (which is pretty dreadful). Imaginatorium (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a perfect exemplar of Cardarelli incompetence: the ridiculous excessive decimal digits, the misreading of simple words (Petrograd v Pittsburgh), the confusion about what's actually being measured (firewood or construction timber?), and the misreading of an adjectival qualifier as a proper name. Although, to be fair, the person responsible for some of these incomprehensions might be Shevonsilva rather than Cardarelli. Reyk _YO! 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything worth merging to any existing article, given the doubtful quality of the sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Add: note that the single source at Petrograd Standard has only this to say on the general unit: The units of measurement are called "Standards" and there is little resemblance between the different "standards". Fittingly, what is presented here as the standard appears to be a specific one (Pittsburgh), and in that capacity is too badly sourced (as noted above). Delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Wavering... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, settling for Keep now. The "standard vs "standard hundred" issue still looks a little unclear, but that's more of a title problem, if it is one. IMO article content and sourcing are good enough for tenure now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: having performed my own WP:BEFORE, I agree with them that once the search paraeters are clearly defined, there's nothng in the literature suggesting notability. ——SN 54129 21:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable as real. Also, pretty much an orphan. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presumably someone somewhere said "standard" instead of "standard cord" but that is very dubious. As explained many times before, the Cardarelli ref is an indiscriminate grab of all possible words and is not reliable. The other two refs fail verification. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article using a variety of sources which seem to have eluded all the nay-sayers above. Their !votes are all now obsolete and the validity of the topic is adequately verified. I have browsed numerous other sources in the course of this and there seems to be more to be said about the standards which applied in other parts which have yet to be covered, such as the timber producing areas of Canada. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:PRESERVE and WP:STICK. Andrew D. (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The added text and refs continue the misunderstanding of standard. Here is the text from The Dictionary of Trade Products, Manufacturing, and Technical Terms, p. 358]:
  Standard, an upright of iron, for fencing; a flag; a test or rule of measure; a solid measure by which hewn timber is estimated, varying in different timber countries. The St. Petersburg standard hundred of deals, and deal ends, contains 120 pieces, 12 feet long, 1½ inch thick, and 11 inches broad, = 165 cubic feet. The Swedish standard hundred contains 121 pieces, 14 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad. The Norwegian standard hundred contains 120 pieces 12 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad. The standard hundred by which battens are commonly sold, contains 120 pieces, 12 feet long, 2½ inches thick, and 7 inches broad. Dantzic and Memel deck deals are sold by a standard of 40 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 12 inches wide. The standard of red deals would weigh about 2¾ tons, and that of white wood 2½ tons. The term standard is used to designate the purity and weight of coins, that is, [...more information on standard coins not shown; the text omitted is twice the size of the text shown...]

That discusses what was used as a standard for trading certain goods. No one called a timber yard and said "I want a standard". The text refers to a standard hundred—I'm not sure what that refers to, perhaps something like a hundredweight? There is no such thing as a standard as portrayed in the article which is perpetuating a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Much as I dislike Andrew's rote recitation of policy buzzwords and the inevitable flagging-over of that little canvassing club - but the quoted text actually makes a rather good case for "standard" constituting a measurement unit (or term for such) on its own. Standard, [...] a solid measure by which hewn timber is estimated, varying in different timber countries - that's a separate thing, not a modifier for "hundredweight" or something like that. Later use in the same passage (The standard of red deals would weigh about 2¾ tons) seems to bear that out. I can't check the other sources, but if they show the same usage, then that would seem adequate sourcing to me. - In which case Petrograd Standard should be merged here, as suggested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Petrograd Standard into this article then, as redundant and integrally within its scope. Reywas92^Talk 02:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the attempted rewrite simply perpetuates the misuse of the adjective "Standard" as a proper name. Adding some pictures of ships doesn't change that, nor obsolete anyone's vote. As pointed out by Johnuniq, nobody is going to call a timber yard or write to St Petersburg and say "I'd like a standard please" and claiming otherwise is faintly misleading. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OED confirms the usage as "A definite quantity of timber, differing in different countries" and gives examples of usage including: "A ‘Petersburgh Standard’ ... consists of 120 deals of 12 feet long by 11 inches wide and 1½ inch thick. [This = 165 cubic feet.]" (1864 Daily Telegraph); "The vessel contained about 1000 standards ... A standard was 165 cubic feet of timber." (1891 Law Times). Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added a couple of refs and here are additional ones.[1][2] Merge Petrograd, and maybe remove the 17th century ship (was the term used then?). StrayBolt (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence has been found proving this is a real thing. I agree that Petrograd Standard should be merged into this article. Dream Focus 11:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't yet had time to evaluate all the sources (I removed one for being unreliable and another for recycling the unreliable), but if this page is kept, it should be renamed to something like standard (timber unit). The less specific name is a touch confusing to read, being too close to Standard units. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also had trouble with the title and would be open to that or maybe standard hundred (unit). I'm seeing some variation in the sizes which I don't know if they are errors or changes over time. StrayBolt (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reams of sources, binder-fulls of sources, entire standards of sources. Archive.org trumps Google Books :) At least on older topics. I added one particularly useful source, but there are many more. OK with renaming it a lumber term, what it is. -- GreenC 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D's commentaries. Though the title requires a qualifier? A history section is probably needed to explain its influence in the movement to standardize units in the first place. Also it should be echoed in Standard units; which should still be a disambiguation page IMO. Broichmore (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Interesting topic , useful information although needs more RS. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Here is "standard hundred" usage in Google Books with a peak around 1880.[3] StrayBolt (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The unit clearly does exist, contrary to the allegation in the nom. The page has been significantly improved since nomination; Cardarelli is no longer a ref and his overprecision and possible inaccuracies have been excised from the article. That appears to have been the main cause for the nomination in the first place, but that rationale is now moot. SpinningSpark 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Though no longer in use, it is historic. Peter Horn User talk 17:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Standard (timber unit). Also Petrograd Standard should be merged into this one as a parent term with better sourcing. The sources hat have been added since nomination demonstrate WP:GNG compliance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article provides useful historical information. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2019 (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.