Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucket (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 Bucket. Nakon 05:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket (unit)

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I merged the contents of this article to a mention at Bucket (disambiguation), which is sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: But I do not think squeezing a Cardarelli (mis)factoid into a disambiguation page is the right way to go either. The problem is not that this stubette article is not noteworthy (though in fact it is not), the problem is that anything Cardarelli's book says should be mistrusted. It is not evidence that a "Bucket" was ever a *unit of measurement* in the UK, in any real sense; at the very best it means that like all containers, a bucket can be used to count how many bucketfuls of manure (or whatever) you have put on the hydrangeas, and at least one bucket at at least one time mentioned in something that Cardarelli found somewhere, probably translated into French, might have had a capacity of 4 gallons. If this is true it should be added to the Bucket article, which currently asserts that a common capacity is "10 litres" (but this would be a rather small bucket.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Edit Or rather, actually a 4-gallon bucket would be awkwardly large and difficult to carry if filled with water. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking for other sources online, I see other websites define 1 bucket the same as Cardarelli, however, those sources seem dubious themselves and may have just gotten the info from Cardarelli. Couldn't find any mentions in the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster. If we can't find a more reliable source I would recommend deleting the dab. Also, found other website that defined a bucket as much smaller than 4 gallons. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It takes little time to confirm that the equivalence of 1 bucket being 4 gallons was fairly well established in metrology - see The Science of Measurement: A Historical Survey, for example. There are obviously alternatives to deletion such as merger with bucket which does not contain this fact and which we prefer per our editing policy. See also There's a Hole in My Bucket, which seems a good parody of these discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well that helps establish WP:V, but this still doesn't go past a dictionary definition and therefore does not pass WP:NOTDICT and so the article should be deleted per our editing policy, although I am ok merging the contents to bucket. Could you please explain your keep !vote, as you didn't provide any information as to how you thought this was covered extensively enough in independent reliable sources in order to go beyond a dictionary definition. The one source you did provide is nothing more than a definition itself, and it does not cover the term "bucket" extensively. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bucket. It's verifiable (e.g. [1]), but does not appear to have received significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no such thing as a unit called a bucket and the well-intentioned effort to move the claim to Bucket (disambiguation) should be reversed. What reliable source discusses who defined a bucket as 4 gallons, and when and where that practice applied? There can be a brief mention at Bucket of any encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cited list has "tuffet (bucket)", as though "bucket" was an alternative pronunciation, regional variant or whatever. But the "tuffet" version is also very obscure: it is not in tuffet, nor the SOED, nor the Imperial Lexicon. Here's a list which just includes "tuffet": https://archive.org/stream/cu31924003684226#page/n141/mode/2up ... it seems to me that including a table such as this in an article on the old binary (what is "octonary"?) units would be just fine, whereas extraction just one name, of double obscurity, and proclaiming it "a unit" is misleading to readers. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I was trying to do any cleanup work before nominating this article by including them in dabs or other articles where appropriate. However, it seems that what constitutes the "correct" type of cleanup for each term in still debate-able. That being said, I'm just going to go back to nominating these articles, and we can discuss dabs, merges, etc. on an individual basis and implement those changes as we go along. If someone else would like to attempt some type of cleanup before I nominate just let me know which articles from the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) you are going to cleanup and I will wait until your done to nominate it, otherwise I will continue to nominate in random order. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my possible snark above—my irritation with these pseudo-articles may have been showing. Thanks very much for your efforts in cleaning them up! Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, no offense was taken. :-) -War wizard90 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No convincing evidence of use of "bucket" as a unit other than in general terms as we'd use "teacupfull". If it had ever been a recognised unit, I trust the OED to have picked it up. Lacking that, delete. PamD 10:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the dozens of other Caradarelli units we've already killed. PianoDan (talk) 13:33, 19 March 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.