Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automotive light sources

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive light sources

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

This is really not an encyclopædia article—it's a parts catalogue, in violation of WP:NOTCATALOG, and it's very difficult to imagine how it could be developed beyond being a glorified parts list. We have Automotive lighting and Headlamp and FMVSS 108 and UN Regulations amply covering the broad subject of automotive lighting and its regulation; I don't think we need to violate WP:NOT to have a bulb catalog on here. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would a redirect to Automotive lighting be acceptable? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I guess so, with a couple of caveats: First off, let's check and make sure such a redirect is actually warranted. This "article" looks to be something of an orphan; I'm not sure it would be missed if it were to go away. Also, Automotive lighting is a very high quality but enormously long article. I think adding the contents of this article to that article would make that article terribly overlong and dilute its quality, so I wouldn't want to see that. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I was not suggesting a merge, just a redirect. As for "make sure such a redirect is actually warranted," what kind of standard did you mean to apply (compare Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap)? SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Good point. Okeh, I'm in. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep This isn't a parts catalogue. The list is not of bulb models, but of their formats. H1, H3, H4 etc. are well known identifiers, but not well understood. These formats are standardized across manufacturers, but the details of what such mean are hidden away from most of our readership inside standards documents with big pricetags.

Maybe rename to List of automotive lamp formats or similar. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Um, no. They aren't "hidden away", and the standards are free for anyone to download; see here, here, here, and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The standards may not appear "hidden away" to those in the industry who would already know what terms and standards to look for, but assuming the reader is well versed is not in keeping with WP:NOT PAPERS. The references are useful for readers who want to delve more deeply into the topic, but are not a substitute for the article.
Keep per the logical rationale posted directly above by User:Andy Dingley. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good for WP:LISTPURP. Faustus37 (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article summarizes the essentials of the contents of European (and somewhat global) automotive bulb standards. It doesn't go into details what comes e.g. to the exact physical dimensions mentioned in those standards. It is well referenced, but far from just a copy-paste of its references. Sometimes a table format representation is better than body text. I don't know if it follows some specific Wikipedia guideline to the letter, but I would say it follows Wikipedia's spirit. I think it is useful for many Wikipedia readers owning a car or doing basic maintaince of one. (BTW, thanks Scheinwerfermann for letting me know about this deletion debate on my talk page. It was very polite and kind. I haven't had much time to contribute to Wikipedia during the last years and it is easy to miss these kind of debates without e-mail alerts.) MattiPaavola (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tables with specifications should not be confused with a catalog. Coaxial power connector and Universal Serial Bus contain multiple tables that facilitate understanding of the different types and their uses.
Comment I would like to know why Scheinwerfermann is only now nominating the this AfD when he was aware of per edits as far back as June 2010, and only after recently changing the articles name from Automotive Lamp Types to a more vague title (thus moving the page) the day before nominating as well as altering the talk page so that his comments are given primary focus (at length) and prior ones including the originator's are minimized to archive though still pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.97.69 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2012 (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.