Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Metric Rip-Off

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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV title, original research.

• Delete. Gazpacho 06:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - though I sympathize with the man who feels he needs more Pringles in a can, truly a noble crusade ;) Sherurcij 11:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination. It doesn't even have anything to do with the metric system. A company could sell something with a label that says "1 pound" and then change it to "15 ounces" and it would be the same "rip-off". -- Kjkolb 13:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to BWMA and replace with redirect. GMR is a crusade of this group; see their homepage.
• Delete, POV title Stifle 20:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Okay I made the article) I know this article might not be NPOV yet> I clearly stated it as a term used by BWMA and other supporters of the English (Imperial) System. If it needs a more appropriate title I will change it, but it contains some valuable information. And while the above contributions are useful I would atleast welcome a change to counter such claims.

Sherurcij,

It's not about getting more pringles in the can...It about the economics and strategies private corporations will apply when there is disruption such as that caused by a country when going fully metric. The people are Losing their pringles. I know you probably won't care that the people are being cheated...It's understandable...It's not your money.

Kjkolb,

You are absolutely right in your above post. It's exactly the same except for the fact that the people might not catch that they are being cheated. In that lies the worth of this article.

Chooserr

• That is fine for your web site, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activism. Gazpacho 06:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I gave the article a fair look. Durova 10:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've added to the article and strived to make it more NPOV can someone take another look? Chooserr

  Sorry, no. Where are the references to price surveys showing that the prices did not drop? Whose prices are we talking about anyway, the manufacturer's, the wholesalers', or the retailers'? As it stands the article is just an advert for an activist's web site. Most grocery stores in the US now have per-unit prices on their tags, so this wouldn't even work on someone who's paying attention. And if it did work, it would be no different from any other product downsizing. Gazpacho 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep english measurments wont give an inch. Damn Eurocrats Klonimus 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; even still, it's unsourced original research, and unverified that companies even do what it is they are accused of in the article. The external link yields a 404. MCB 05:58, 29 November 2005 (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.