Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures}})

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (commonly BIPM, per its name in French) is undoubtedly notable but this article does not show that the foundation of the Bureau was a separately notable event, and notability is not inherited. Merging into International Bureau of Weights and Measures would not be appropriate; much of this content has previouly been removed from that article, and/or Metre and History of the metre, as excessively detailed, failing WP:DUE, off-topic, digressive and florid. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Science. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete this seems to be a POV fork that combines things that could be included in International Bureau of Weights and Measures#History and then History of the metre. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• So you would undo Special:Diff/1282631916 by the nominator and put it back in? We're here because the nominator blanked all of this from the main article's history section saying it was off-topic, it was spun out to a sub-article (presumably to be on-topic in its own article), and then the nominator nominated the sub-article for deletion. Don't be fooled by the passive voice in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This article also includes material deleted from History of the metre by Johnjbarton[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_metre&diff=prev&oldid=1282623556] and from Metre by Fgnievinski[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=prev&oldid=1271855195]. NebY (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• The irony is that the centennial history of the BIPM published in 1975 was 220-some pages long, and yet our article had a mere 4 paragraphs of history. The coverage in the 1883-09-13 edition of Nature that was only on the founding of the organization, who agreed to it, who paid for it, where the buildings were built, and what was in the buildings, was longer than our entire main article. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Merge Fist, do NOT have duplicative content that is identical and redundant across pages. I think some of this issue comes from the ongoing edits and reversion between {{u|NebY}} and {{u|Charles Inigo}} across multiple pages so I'm not sure what each intends for them to look like, but Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures#Emerging geodetic standard and History of the metre#Emerging geodetic standard should not be on two pages lke this. The main BIPM article is not long enough to warrant a subarticle and its history should absolutely be longer – A lot of this information is very relevant and should be included there. However, I agree that some of this is about the history of the meter rather than specifcially the BIPM so that would belong on that page rather than this one. I disagree that it's excessively florid or detailed, it could use copyediting or trimming but should be kept somewhere rather than deleted altogether. Reywas92^Talk
• Nor Merge nor Delete I tried to insert a lot of informations in History of the metre, but other contributors belived this article sould rather focuse on successive definitions of the metre. In order to avoid deletion of material, I copied part of it in International Association of Geodesy and in Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain.
• Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain shows that the arc measurement which served to define the length of the metre was preceded by a geodetic survey aiming at joinning Paris and Greenwich observatories and was followed by remeasurment and extension of the arc meridian through Spain and Algeria at the time when Greenwich was adopted as the Prime meridian.
• International Association of Geodesy explains the role of geodetic surveys and gravimetry in determining the figure of the Earth which was the aim of the French Acacdemy of Sciences in addition of determining the length of the metre.
• When I created Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures the introductory section was larger and I copy-pasted it in the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures with links to various articles including Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain and Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
• I then copy pasted material from History of the metre where it is considered by other contributors as an excessive amount of intricate details. I copied and pasted rather than cut and paste as I anticipated that Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures could be deleted.
• In conclusion, I propose:
• to keep the extended version of the introductory section of Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the content of the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures,
• to keep the section Emerging geodetic standard in Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and
• to delete or summarize this section in History of the metre, which should focuse on the successive definitions of the metre accordingly to the wish of other contributors of this article.
• Merge The content of the article Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures has been deleted, when I tried to merge it in History of the metre and it will not be accepted in the future. Merging in the article International Bureau of Weights and Measures's section History could eventually be an alternative. Charles Inigo (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Is the "Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures" notable?

:** Our criterion is A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notice that explicitly excludes sources by the BIPM. Some of the sources in the current article are about the topic but the vast majority are not. Even Quinn's books, since he worked there for 25 years.

:** Delete? I wish, but it does not look like we will have consensus to delete and there are reliable sources for the topic.

:** Merge? No, the current content is not suitable any where in Wikipedia.

:** What to do? I made a proposal Talk:Foundation_of_the_International_Bureau_of_Weights_and_Measures#Proposal. Basically delete any content that does not match (say) Quinn's TOC for his Artifacts book.

:Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::* I agree with the name change for instance: Creation of the International Bureau for Weights and Measures. I propose a short description be added: From geodetic standard to international prototype metre. The scope of the article could be limited to the period from the Exposition Universelle (1855) up to the first General Conference on Weights and Measures (1855-1889). However, many sources date the beginning of the process back to the Great Exhibition in 1851.

::Charles Inigo (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Has a good chunk of citations and looks notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Ramos1990 I wonder if you looked at the sources? I have and found the vast majority are not about the article topic. That is the core problem here. The content is essential spam. Yes, there is some vague connection to the topic but the point of an encyclopedia is to be concise and to link to other articles for connections. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge, great content that should not be entirely deleted, but a Merge to International Bureau of Weights and Measures is acceptable and valid here. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.