Deletion of Aum (unit)

Comment: per the arguments I made when I wrote rticles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit) and arguments by people above, especially Hoary. Same group of articles created by a single user that has no encyclopedic value other than dicdefs and unit conversions. Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, unit conversion machine, or anything else like that. No prejudice against creation into a mass list of obsolete units of measurement or transwiki into wiktionary. The source used, as many editors have pointed out, is unreliable. &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: Truss (unit) is almost the worst sort of article we have, a throwback to 2006 or something. It consists mainly of massive quotes from public domain sources that, because of their antiquity, tend to use stilted language. We long ago began to deprecate copy/pasting huge chunks of text from ''Britannica'' (1911) etc and I really don't see that we gain from adopting the lazy approach here. Quote-dumping to this extent also forces us to breach  because we have to deploy links all over the place, contrary to the guideline. If we cannot find a way meaningfully to discuss the unit without a lot of reliance on century-old texts etc, we're probably well into the realm of DICDEF because, seemingly, any notability lies in antiquity
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOSQUOTE)

Comment: at least for the time being, and give them a bit more chance to grow. Why is there such a huge rush to delete them anyway? Truss (unit) clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to a new article titled List of obsolete units of measurement List of United Kingdom units of measurement per . While these may not be independently notable, these do appear to have been covered as a set/group. One source example is https://books.google.com/books?id=6KCx8Ww75VkC&printsec=frontcover ''Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: The fact that a unit is antiquated is not a sensible reason to delete because, as a general encyclopedia, we are here to provide information about such obscure topics.  We have no policy forbidding content on such grounds and an |editing policy which indicates the opposite.  It is quite easy to find further sources which document units such as the aum.  For example, see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tZZQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA77 here, "''AUM, or Aume, a Dutch measure for Rhenish wine, (as an aum of hock) containing forty English gallons.''"  while other authors such as Thomas Frognall Dibdin|Dibdin has more to say about it too.  Note that there is even some need for disambiguation too as there's a second AUM unit - the animal unit|animal unit month (AUM).   There's a huge amount to consider here and, in some cases, we might choose to merge into an existing page.  For example, the circular inch might be merged into the circular mil, as they are related units.  This would not be done be deletion but by ordinary editing.  Working through all this detail will take time but there is |no pressing reason to do all this in seven days.  This just seems to be a |vexatious proposal contrary to our |behavioural guidelines insofar as it is directed against the work of a particular editor rather than obscure units in general
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:DEADLINE||WP:ZEAL||WP:BITE)