Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 June 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. (non-admin closure) Tow talk 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Illinois[edit]

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

Do we really need an article explaining this? Although the information on the article might be notable, it is not notable enough to carry an entire article for itself. All this time articles whould be merged into a Time in the United States article. Also, i think this is information that would only be needed on the articles related to time zones (which already have a list), and written on the infobox of each one of those states. Not in a separate article. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of a large number of similar articles covering different US states that have been created over the last few days. I also don't see why each state needs a separate article: the content should be included in Time in the United States.TheLongTone (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time in the United States per nom and TheLongTone. Similar articles for other states should be merged as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me revise my opinion on the similar articles. Things like Time in Indiana should obviously be kept as a stand-alone article (and possibly renamed, but that's another debate). However I still think the present article, and others with similar content, should be merged. If any of them can be expanded beyond trivial lists of time zones, etc., then I would be fine with keeping them as stand-alone articles, but I don't think that this will be the case for most of them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time in Illinois contains historic information about time observance in Chicago. This information AFAICS does not exist anywhere else in Wikipedia. Observance at other locations in Illinois can be added if that information is found. To collect that information at Time in the United States, would make that article larger than WP articles normally are. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Material and procedural. Material: There is so much information about time in every state, that it would be too large to merge into the US time article. Procedural: Also, if the nominator wants to merge an article, it is the wrong process to put an AfD notice. That's abuse of templates. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its a fair point that the Time in the United Statesrticle is already quite large. However, there is also a separate article, List of time zones by U.S. state, which covers the essential info about the time zones. I would think that the stuff about clocktowers would be best included within the articles(s) on individual states. It's a question of fragmentation of information: this information is useful, but a huge number of individual articles is not the best way to do it.TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it is also better to have historic time information on state specific articles. "Time in <some state>" may attract attention of local editors to add more historic information. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this ought to be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, in the case of Indiana, the time zone has been a matter of longstanding controversy and as such there's useful information to deal with. And there are probably articles on other states that could - if the sources are there - explore changes in time zones over time, or weird DST changes. OTOH, it's difficult to see how this article on time in Illinois passes notability requirements.

The clocktowers stuff isn't obviously relevant to these articles - but in practice many of them won't contain much else. If we really need articles to list every clocktower in the United States - if such articles are genuinely notable - they belong in a list of clocktowers series, not here. Kahastok talk 14:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/redirect this and most of the other similar articles this prolific new editor has created, many international ones. He has also been doing out of process re-organizing clock categories, which needs to go to CFD. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and the others. I created a number of them as stubs to contain at least the county time-zone split info when it was too much for the main article. Some of it did not even exist elsewhere in WP or is inconsistent or incorrect. They are all a work in progress. They will include time zone maps like Time in Idaho and be a repository for other information that cannot be reasonably included in the already-long main article. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Two of us have spent a bunch of time trying to fill a real gap here. Nobody wants their work or time disrespected. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was assuming good faith. :) I do think that this information should be on Wikipedia somewhere - it's just that there's a difference between not assuming good faith and thinking that a topic would be better presented a different way. Looking at all the debate here, I think the issue is really outside the scope of AfD. The discussion has shifted from the one article at hand, Time in Illinois, to the whole set of state time articles, but at the end of the day the closing admin here will have to make a decision about this one individual article. I think we should wait until this discussion has been closed, and then start a request for comments over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time about how we should treat this subject in general. If the decision is to merge this particular article, then there are still a few different ways we can present the information. We could create a List of clock towers in the United States, for example. Or maybe we could work some of the information into History of time in the United States. As TheLongTone said, it's a question of fragmentation of information. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Its not a matter of not assuming good faith or of the value of the information: it is obvious that you are both serious about this. it is rather about how and where it is best placed in wikipedia, both to make the informtion readily accessable and to avoid fragmentation of data. Really for most of this information a large number of individual articles is not a good way to do this.TheLongTone (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was proposed for being deleted, Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois. Deletion is not really relocation, is it? BTW, I just found maps for the Standard Time Act of 1918, this gives more information to be added at state level. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off the main topic, but a small review of AfD/merger procedures, in answer to Royaume de Maroc's question: As described in Wikipedia:Merging, there are two processes that often end up resulting in mergers when they are done.

The direct merge discussion, where someone tags an article with {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}}, etc., then users discuss it on one of the article talk pages. It's usually for articles in which it is difficult to see how one topic is truly separate from others. It's also used when it is obvious that the articles obviously cover the same subject, and there is a question about which one should be the "main" article and which should be merged in and redirected. This is a more informal process than Articles for Deletion, and sometimes sits around a long time before being resolved; on the other hand, sometimes it doesn't last very long at all, because the person proposing the merger is fairly sure about it and just wants to make sure that nobody objects. Sometimes only part of the material is merged (a "section merge").
The Articles for Deletion discussion, where sometime tags the article for deletion and goes through the formal AfD process. This is usually when there is a question of whether the article's subject itself meets Wikipedia:Notability, but AfDs can be based on any reason an article shouldn't exist. AfD is a fairly formal process: it has rules for opening, closing, and requires administrator action to close it in most cases. "Merge and redirect" is a common response when a participant feels that the article subject itself doesn't meet the criteria for an article (that is, it is eligible for deletion), but it appears that some of the text might be useful in another article, or the article name might be something that would be useful for searching. When an AfD is closed as "merge and redirect", that basically means "Delete", but salvaging (some) text to add to another article. If "Redirect", then it's also the same as Delete, but with a useful redirect left to indicate which article the subject should be in.

I hope this helps. --Closeapple (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my further comment at ~~Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AlanM12012052901~~ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#AlanM12012052901. Specifically, I'm referring to the "Time in state" articles that cover more than one time zone (which, ironically, does not include the original subject – Illinois). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The creator, User:Royaume du Maroc, is now indef blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. I was and shortly will be travelling, so if anyone has the time to put noms up to resolve the chaos he's brought to time and clock categories I'd be very grateful indeed. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub now, but it's definitely worthy of expansion to a decent article. Aside from chopping the pointless clock towers section, we could improve it by discussing the state of timekeeping before the implementation of time zones, the process of adapting time zones, the relationship with Indiana's changing time zones, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have sources for this, i.e. evidence that this passes WP:GNG specifically for the state of Illinois? It seems to me that most of what you discuss is all very well in principle, but is likely to be general information that doesn't need a specific article for Illinois but can be handled at a US level. The situation in Illinois is unlikely to be much different from, say, Wisconsin or Missouri. And we're surely best off describing the situation in Indiana in the article about Indiana - it doesn't seem to be a reason to have an article on Illinois. Kahastok talk 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. Look how long and detailed the information is for Indiana. It's entirely reasonable to think that other states might have similarly detailed histories, isn't it? Do we really want one article (Time in the United States) with 16 maps (based on the current number of multi-zone states with articles) and as many as 50 detailed histories? Note that my arg is not about IL currently – it's more about the states that currently have multiple time zones, though if and when someone wants to investigate and write about histories, it almost certainly will be about the rest of the states. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Indiana, the time zone has a long and thorny history. It would surprise me if more than one or two other states have a similarly complicated history in this area. But I'm reserving judgement on that. So far as I'm concerned, this is an AFD for Time in Illinois and I'm focussing on Time in Illinois. This AFD should not be automatically taken as a precedent for any state other than those whose position is clearly comparable to Illinois, and even in those cases we should be going to AFD on a case-by-case basis. My point is that I have yet to see evidence that Time in Illinois passes WP:GNG. If we don't pass notability requirements - if we can't write a policy-compliant article - we shouldn't have an article. Kahastok talk 10:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no one is arguing to delete the Indiana article, but that doesn't mean every state needs one. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think "Time in Illinois" needs a stand-alone article. The time-zone & general historical material belongs in Time in the US: I don't think there's a case for a list of clocktowers in Illiois article & would think it a pretty trivial inclusion in the Illinois article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 4 June 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.