Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrical wiring (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. JERRY talk contribs 05:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Electrical wiring (United States)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a completely unreferenced how-to article. It mentions the 2002 edition of the NEC, while the current edition of the NEC is 2008. Some information in the article was correct in 2002, and is incorrect after the release of the 2008 NEC. While this could be fixed, I think this article is mostly how-to. Worse, since Wikipedia is unreliable, and this article in particular is so long, broad, and completely unsourced, it should be removed. Electrical wiring is something left to a licensed expert. If done incorrectly, it can result in property damage or loss, and in injury or the loss of life. Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.Blueboy96 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not a "how to" guide - it is more a "how it is done" article. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. I too am concerned about the possibility of someone electrocuting themselves by attempting to follow the advice of this article, and the subsequent legal liability that the site could face.  Lankiveil (complaints 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete I agree with the above points. How-to guides don't belong on wikipedia, especially ones over matters as potentially dangerous as these. -- AbJ32 (Drop me a line) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More Comment - Household wiring is hardly the most dangerous topic described on the Wikipedia. My goodness, there are articles about gunpowder and nuclear bombs and anal sex and jump starting a car and LSD and methamphetamines...won't someone please think of the children?  Now I know why so many people encourage "Pokemon" and "Trekkie" articles on the Wikipedia...the little darlings can't hurt themselves (aside from becoming obese).  And, believe me, household wiring is not particularly difficult and is legal for homeonwners to do in many jurisdictions. If this is a how-to guide, then so is anal sex. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete --- Is this a how-to site? Zero (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The main article is Electrical wiring. Wikipedia is not censored and it is absurd to suppress information on this topic on the grounds of safety.  I have added a citation to demonstrate the ease with which one can add references.  If the NYT has no qualms about discussing the subject, neither should we. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, firstly, it's a how-to, which makes it deletable to start with. Secondly, are you not concerned about the possibility of someone seriously injuring or killing themselves?  Doing electrical wiring work is not as simple as assembling furniture from IKEA or building a spice rack, especially if you're not a licenced professional (as you are likely to be if you're looking for information on doing your own wiring at Wikipedia).  Even if this information were correct, which I'm not sure it is, based on the nominator's statement, we'd need a big disclaimer at the top advising that we take no responsibility, etc etc.  It's not censorship to suggest that we turf this article out, it's basic responsibility to our readers.  Lankiveil (complaints 12:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
 * It doesn't seem to be a how-to. It is just a general discussion of the topic.  Wikipedia contains many such discussions, such as explosives, brain surgery and heroin.  Your fears are excessive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, we certainly wouldn't place a big disclaimer at the top; see, e.g., WP:NDT and General disclaimer. Joe 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the Colonel. If this is a how-to page than so is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendicectomy If you start worrying about people suing because they incorectly used information from this electrical wiring article then you might as well just shut Wiki down. Slhumph (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The differences between the appendectomy page and the wiring page are profound. The important is that this page offers prescriptive advice, but the appendectomy page doesn't. The wiring page says that certain equipment isn't required, when it is; the appendectomy page (wisely!) doesn't advise what equipment is required when performing an appendectomy. I'm not sure the appendectomy article is correct, but information in the wiring article is simply wrong: there are many cases where a 12 AWG wire is too thin to carry 20 amps, even if this article says otherwise. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a how-to guide, not an encyclopedic article. Also, I'm unconvinced that we should have 100+ articles detailing the wiring protocols for each country. Addhoc (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - can be easily rewritten out of how-to format. It would be of continuing interest to some users to compare andcontrast the different wiring methods in the US, UK, and elsewhere in the world - I only wish we had more contributors from other areas who could write authoritatively about their national wiring practices with an eye to comparing them to other countries (and explanations of the reasons for the differences). I' mastonished again that lists of elf-kings get articles while this is even considered for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - So make this more encyclopedic. There is a huge problem with people not understanding this subject, and it costs lives.  It is something that deserves to be present to educate. jaknouse (talk)
 * Keep. I do DIY electrical and I have several how-to books and magazine articles that I use. This is not a how-to guide -- it doesn't tell you what tools to use, it doesn't tell you how to tie off a pigtail, it doesn't tell you how to use an electrical tester to determine whether you've done the job correctly. It simply lists a number of US-specific standards. That is encyclopedic and certainly notable. I scoff at the idea that this is suddenly the one subject that we censor. --Dhartung | Talk 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. This article is "how-to" because it tells DIY'ers like yourself what equipment or parts are used for certain jobs -- and fails at doing so at a subject that has immense risk. One subject? There are many other articles which are up for deletion. Censor? After peeling away your grandiose rhetoric, I can't figure out why you've voted "keep". -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see why I have earned a sarcastic personal attack. Sorry, but I can't figure out why you're voting delete, as you have explained some personal opinions but not under policy. Show me what policies are violated. What information would you have in an article on US electrical wiring? --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry you feel that way; what was it that you found to be a personal attack? Meanwhile, The article contains perscriptive (rather than instructive) how-to information. The article contains original research. The article is almost completely unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The part where you referred to "grandiose rhetoric" when I was citing policy was not appreciated. Original research and unreferenced are not the same thing, and it does make reference to the 2002 NEC, which certainly sounds like a reference to me. Not all references are in the form of properly formatted footnotes, even if they ultimately should be. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly needs work and updating, but it is not a "how-to article." It has a caveat, and must continue to have one, stating that it is not a substitute for the actual electrical code, the explanatory books which reveal what the obscure committee-written code book actually means, and handbooks for the novice or homeowner. Shortcuts or mistakes in wiring kill people and destroy property. A good comparison would be to what respected paper encyclopedias have to say about the topic. Edison (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see a caveat in this article. In fact, I see the opposite; for example, the article claims to provide information about wiring practices in the US. Fact is, in the US, local authorities (states, counties, and cities) can override or ammened the so-called National Electric Code at will. That is, what someone reads here as being applicable to their wiring project because they're in the US might not actually apply because the authorities having jurisdiction has overridden the code. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A highly appropriate start to an article. Needs to be rewritten and much expanded, as it is presently the barest summary of a complex topic. It is not even now, and never was, in how to do it format--anyone who thinks it is, should just take a look at the real books that are--and take another look at the article. DGG (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your inappropriate and unwelcomed advice aside, this artilce is a how-to. While it's not a step-by-step how-to, it offers perscriptive advice. For example, it recommends using certain devices in certain circumstances, or sizes of wire for certain loads. In both of these cases, the advice it offers is somewhere between wrong and incomplete. Indeed, there is a difference between the content of this article and a how-to book on wiring -- the h offer similar altruisms, but provide enough context that the advice can be safely understood and applied. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup per DGG. Even if household electrical wiring was rocket science (which, contrary to popular belief, it isn't), we would still try to cover it in the greatest possible detail, without making paranoid disclaimers or replacing select passages of text with "ask your electrician/attorney/physician/guru for further information". As far as injury and loss of life go, "electrical error" is trivial compared to "medical error" or "driver error" (leading causes), but that's not terribly relevant. — CharlotteWebb 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - lack of sources is an area of concern, but not a grounds for deletion. Also, as mentioned above, Wikipedia is not censored.  Jd 027  chat 14:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be just me, but that article doesn't seem like a how-to article at all. It's a great start to an informative article.  Jd 027  chat 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be a great start to an informative article -- if some larger percentage of the information it contained was correct and current. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Article needs serious work before it can be considered encyclopedic. -- RoninBK T C 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If we deleted every article that needed serious work, there would be millions fewer articles in the Wikipedia. I, for one, want to put more effort into researching the topic, adding references, and writing text. I have access to many relevant refernces and a little expertise in the area (though I would much prefer some American contributors here). And like many articles at this stage a couple of hours work on the article now will have immense benefits in improving the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not trying to turn this into an inclusionist/deletionist argument. But the problem here is that in its current form, this article is something that Wikipedia consensus has determined should not be included in an encyclopedia. The serious work I am talking about is in turning it into something that is encyclopedic. If its improved by the end of this AfD, fine. But even with your current improvements, you've still got a long way to go. -- RoninBK T C 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As of a couple of minutes ago the "consensus" is not at all clear to me - 7:5 "keep", not that we're voting or anything. I would greatly appreciate your specific recommendations to make the content more encyclopdiac. It's certainly verifiable, and when I can get my books from the office I can plug in more references.  I get frustrated with Wikipedia often - stuff like fanboy epsiode guides to cable tv cartoon shows get exhaustively documented, but real-world important topics get sketchy attention. It's part of the expert retention problem, I suppose. Sometimes the Wikipedia "consensus" is set by noisy fanboys. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I misspoke when I referred to "consensus" in the vague sense, I was not specifically referring to the consensus of this AfD. What I was referring to is Wikipedia policy, (What Wikipedia is not), that demands that Wikipedia is not to be used as a manual, guidebook, or textbook. The consensus I referred to is the overall consensus that directs the Wikipedia project. Now, I'm not trying to discourage you from trying to improve the article. We've got a few days of AfD debate, and if you feel that you can figuratively change lead into gold by the end of it, be my guest. I'm just highly skeptical of the chances, that's all. -- RoninBK T C 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is that the article is a manual or how-to guide. I agree there's consensus that should not be in Wikipedia, but WP:NOT describes those as "instructions, advice ... or suggestions". I just don't see that in the article at hand. There are a few bits where it maybe goes beyond "the code says" or strays into specifications rather than core ideas. Again, that's editing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Giving information about a particular trade or giving information that is then misused resulting in injury are not reasons for deleting an article. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Ronin, if you think this is a how to manual, just try to do something using it as your working guide. Don't actually connect the current, though.DGG (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid the personal tone of that comment, please? -- RoninBK T C 08:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notability is clearly given.  Google Scholar has 6k hits on "electrical wiring" "united states" cable (mostly patents).  Nominator wrongly argues per WP:PROBLEM.  Also, per WP:CENSOR and WP:NDA, I don't the think a safety argument holds. -- Lea (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and about the how-to problem: Feel free to remove any parts written in how-to style. (There will still be plenty of encyclopedic content left, as far as I can see.) -- Lea (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a how-to, but a description of conventions and regulations for electrical wiring in the US. Inaccuracies and such can be fixed by editing, without having to delete the article. --Itub (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep . The nominator is arguing that the subject of this article is so inherently dangerous that it must not be be in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is imperfect. By the that logic, we should delete most articles in Category:Diseases since they generally give diagnostic and treatment information. More generally we should shut the project down because the world doesn't need unreliable information. I believe Wikipedia grows better through incremental improvement. This article needs work, but that is not a basis for deletion.--agr (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a how-to.  As for the nominator's other points, Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially dangerous content. Spacepotato (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information but better writing should be used to address concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.148 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.