Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of street lighting in the United States

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. Star Mississippi 01:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of street lighting in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article is a bloated mess, wandering constantly off topic into minutiae about the lights without explaining their relevance to the United States. In fact, the "High pressure sodium", "Metal halide", and "Induction lamp" headers don't even talk about the US at all, and one section wanders entirely off-topic into street light usage in Mexico. The sourcing is also horrendous, mostly being tourism sites or fan archives. Most of the content in the lead -- including Benjamin Franklin creating street lights in Philadelphia or Charles Brush using them in Cleveland -- is not expanded on in the article's body.

The article seems to be mostly a pet project for editor Tpirman1982 (talk · contribs), who at one point even linked his own street light gallery hosted on a personal website. Other editors have tried to stem Tpirman1982's excessively detailed additions, but he is still using the article in an expository, cataloguing manner not suitable for Wikipedia.

Further more, no other country has its own "Street lighting" subpage, making this one stick out like a sore thumb. The sources in the article do not expound on the subject as a whole, just individual details about certain types of lights that have been used in, but are not exclusive by any means to, the United States. It's the same logic as those infernal stamp articles: yes, we can prove the US has used these types of lights, but we can't prove that the overlaid subject of their specific use in America is notable. Most of the relevant points here are already covered at street light, leaving this article to be WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR with a side of WP:OFFTOPIC.

If there is an article under all this, then WP:TNT clearly needs to be applied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there were better sources, I'd vote keep. This is an occasional citation then tons of prose without citation. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There might be a notable topic here, but what's here right now is so poorly cited and lacking in encyclopedic style that I would not be opposed to deleting the entire thing per WP:TNT. Stubifying would also be a good solution. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm concerned there might also be some WP:COMPETENCE issues with Tpirman1982 as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per the extensive improvements made by User:Cielquiparle. The article at the time of the nomination was a disaster, and the changes made by ARS weren't much of an improvement (they were more about other countries than the United States) but now it is worth retaining. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Street light#History. This is essentially a personal essay and lacks references and cohesion. There may be a notable topic here, and redirects are cheap, but this text is not going to work. Better than stub-ifying because an entirely empty "History of street lighting in the US" article would beg the question of the reader, what history? -Indy beetle (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to all the above problems, including lack of citing, I agree on the proposal of History of street lighting in the United States completely deleted from Wikipedia. You have my vote on having this page entirely deleted. Tpirman1982 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep thanks to the improvements since nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [Strong] Keep [upgraded to 'Strong Keep' after very good page improvements during the run of this AfD, added 13:18 23 June], a notable long-term topic from 2004 well worth the page and the work involved in writing and researching it. The Benjamin Franklin information was new to me and I'll add the Franklin template. As to questioning editors' competence, see WP:CIRNOT. The nomination's criticisms seem entirely fixable, and arguments that no other country has such a page, or the name "United States" isn't repeated enough, seem picking objections without the objections being actually objectionable. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problems are far greater. The sources are abysmal, and vast swaths of the article are entirely off-topic. None of the sources discusses the underlying topic as a whole, just various subsets. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A topic can be notable and still deleted, per WP:TNT. That doesn't mean you can't create a properly written version after the deletion in that case. Of course, if the criticisms are entirely fixable, anyone is welcome to prove this so and in such a case I would vote for keeping. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we all reading the same article? "Vast swaths" of it seem fine and educational (encyclopedia=educational), and I learned a lot from reading it. AfD is another world, a world where, in the past, canceling key opposing editors is a normal response to logical opposition. Bottom line, the article is fine, a long-term (started in 2004) Wikipedia page, and any problems are both surmountable and easily solvable by a bit of editing. Seriously, thanks for inadvertently pointing out this interesting page while wishing for its demise. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm such an evil deletionist trying to destroy everything that I even said that the only reason I wanted it deleted was per WP:TNT, and that there would be zero issue with someone rewriting the article from scratch in that case. Believe it or not I do care about encyclopedic content and do plenty of content writing. I don't just go around with a wrecking ball all day. But by all means keep assuming bad faith. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, I assume good faith in that I trust that editors putting up pages and voting on AfD actually believe what they say and stand behind. While I don't agree, and know that not everyone has the same point of view, I hold to the principal that if a fair proportion of editors vote to 'Keep' it also means that they represent a large percentage of readers who themselves don't mind the pages and find them useful. Those unheard from but represented readers' points of view seem just as valid and important to these discussions as those who see things like TNT as a solution to what they consider a problem. I'd say that the comments in this AfD, for example, puts it within the shadow of Keep, which to my own reasoning (and a yet incomplete essay) means it should, at that point, be automatically kept, the RfD removed, and an afterparty held with dancing bears and numerous types of pizza. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article can be improved; sources exist. But the cited reasons are not a reason to delete, but to improve. WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think it can be improved, perhaps demonstrate it instead of just answering the canvass from ARS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. "This was posted above as being at the project. Your "canvas" accusation does not help advanced this discusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, it seems that your additions were 1) a statement about street lighting in other countries 2) a quote about street lighting in London and 3) a student's assignment about a town in Australia (actually, it turns out that you had only made addition #1 at the time of your comment). How do these address the issues raised in this AfD discussion? They seems like a random grab-bag of Google results for "street lighting". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. WP:HEY Indeed, WP:BEFORE could have revealed more sources now in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Street light#History per Indy beetle PianoDan (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Indy beetle. The article body appears to give a more generalized history of street lighting and the methods used, with minuscule mentions of US regions and events, and the lead doesn't summarize the article at all. Not to mention that the sourcing is awful, for lack of a better word. These issues are too prominent for me to !vote for the article to be kept. XtraJovial (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is some referenced information about street lighting in America. The general information about how each light source worked should be at Street_light#History, not here. Dream Focus 22:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's referenced to sources like tourism bureaus and self published sites though. Not one source seems to be WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I found this https://edisontechcenter.org/ArcLamps.html to confirm information in the opening about the first arc lamps in the nation. Arc_lamp#Carbon-arc_lighting_in_the_U.S. has some additional referenced information about this. Dream Focus 22:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  However, street lighting in the U.S. is barely mentioned (just one city in a list of many others) in that article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of improvements have been made to the article. Hopefully everyone will look at the changes and judge it now. Dream Focus 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to street light. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but there just simply doesn't look like any reliably sourced content to merge that isn't already in the target article. It's an interesting subject, but this doesn't seem to add anything -- anything reliable sourced -- beyond the main article. So per WP:NOPAGE and WP:TNT, redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaffirming !vote after recent edits. Most of the citations added today are to .... commercial websites of lighting companies? The two other links are to an image-based listicle and this LA Times piece about an art exhibit. Somewhat relevant, but still not persuaded this wouldn't better be handled in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second update. Kudos to Cielquiparle for improving the article with good sources and removing the terrible sources added early in this AfD. Whereas the latter just added to the problems, Cielquiparle's edits give the article some potential. It could still use a bit more, and relies really heavily on one source, but it's a good one. It might make sense to just ditch the "history of" part of the title, but that's a separate conversation. Keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant improvements with really good sourcing, article can continue to improve and topic has meet notability criteria. Kudos ARS crew in fairness. Redirect to Street light#History or Delete. The sourcing is highly dubious and some circular - for example heisolar.com points back to historyoflighting.net, wikipedia, a blog and a commercial site (which in turn points back to historyoflighting.net, etc). A lot of the article deals with older methods of providing lighting which are neither exclusive to the USA nor have been explained in a manner relevant to the topic and most of the "factoids" are completely unsources (e.g. dates of first use or availability or "became common"). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC) HighKing⁺⁺ 21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This isn't personal. There are no winners or victors. This is not about deletionists or antideletionists or Exclusionists (forgot the mention them). It is not about WP:ARS or its pretenders. Let's WP:AGF and talk about the improved article. YMMV.

So what?

It's an open encyclopedia, and this discussion should be too.

Petty reciminations should be left by the wayside. Just sayin' ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Street lighting#History per above. It sounds like it’d be a notable and interesting topic but in its current state it’s just a pointless fork to nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update, the page has been greatly improved even since the last comments. As it is right now it likely would have never been nommed, so affirming a Keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Street lighting#History, merging whatever would be useful. Many of the "improvements" actually make the problems requiring a redirect even worse, since they added huge swaths of text and sources not specific to the United States - underlining the fact that we lack the sources to properly support this as an independent article. The few paragraphs here specific to the US place undue weight on a single source and would be better covered more briefly on Street lighting#History. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject of street lighting in the United States is notable. 1909, 1939, 1950, 1957 and 1926 this mention of tallow candles inside of globes in New York. Our notability guidelines WP:SIGCOV appear to be met. The nominator calls for WP:TNT which means start over, not delete. But I do not think we need to start over with this topic - it looks like some editors have already performed some major cleanup on the article. Bruxton (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY: the article received a major overhaul from June 20 to June 24 (UTC), and it is a notable topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 25 June 2022 (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.