Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities with Thunderbolt sirens


 * 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   delete. As painful as it is to delete a long-standing article that someone obviously put a lot of time into, this article unfortunately doesn't comply with WP notability policies. If anyone would like me to restore this article for the purposes of transferring it to another wiki, please let me know. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 05:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

List of cities with Thunderbolt sirens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list includes all known alarm sirens of a couple of models made by one manufacturer and installed in various cities presently or at some time in the past. Wikipedia is not a directory, whether of these sirens, or of, say any other fungible manufactured device in widespread use. It appears to fail the guideline for notability of standalone lists due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the collection as such (besides whether the particular models of siren are themselves notable.) Additionally, it appears to be all or mostly original research, sourced only to user-contributed photos at Photobucket or Youtube videos of the sirens. It is cool to hear the sirens, but this collection of listings and links belongs at a hobbyist website rather than in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable original research. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It pains me to recommend deletion on an article someone obviously worked very hard on. But there is no evidence of notability, no sources and strong reason to suspect original research. And I think it's too large to fold into Thunderbolt Siren. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems good/interesting, not promotional by a manufacturer or anything.  The Thunderbolt sirens seem to be a part of Americana, of interest, and some/many still in place.  I looked up one town and found it covered, learned something myself.  The article could be tagged to be improved / better sourced.  Were the creators/developers notified that they should improve the article?  Tag and perhaps revisit in a year or two, no rush. -- do  ncr  am  16:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentYes, I notified 2 editors of the article in addition to the creator of the article. "It is interesting" is not found in the guideline for notability . Thousands of types of interchangeable manufactured artifacts such as grain elevators, watertowers, railroad crossing arms, and stoplights could also be collected in similar lists of where some are to be  found,  would be part of Americana,  and might be interesting to those who like to add items to the lists, but would also be likely to fall afoul of WP:NOT. Tagging would not be a solution. The article about the sirens themselves is more interesting and should satisfy the urge to preserve the historicity.  That said, the article's contributors certainly did a nice job ion the original research of adding ones they were familiar with. Edison (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pretty important that the "original research" includes photos that document what is in place. As you know, the use of photos within Wikipedia is a big exception to the general rule against using original research in Wikipedia.  If the photos documenting a siren being somewhere were in Wikipedia or Commons, is that so different?  But they're being in some other user-contributed sites means they're invalid.?  I think the acceptance in several comments here of the probable complete accuracy of information in this list-article is important.  Call for providing more specific, normal evidence, yes, but don't delete what seems to be a good, useful, interesting list. -- do  ncr  am  23:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No such exception for original research exists. Photos are easily misinterpreted. For example, how do we know that the photo of Colona, IL, was actually taken in Colona, or that the siren illustrated in it is a Thunderbolt? Photos are only permitted to illustrate a topic. They can't be used to introduce new information about the topic. Pburka (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the pic is not detailed enough for me to zero in on the writing on the sign in front of the fire station, but what you say about Wikipedia's use of photos is not true in practice. In historic site articles, where most of my contributions are, a photo of a 1980-listed building documents what it looks like from the street, in 2012, obviously conveying "information" to the reader.  E.g.: In 2012 it is pretty much the same compared to historic photos also linked from the article, but the Federal-style porch which was part of the justification for its historic nomination is no longer present, in 2012.  And, practice includes explicit text commentary, e.g. "In 2012, the house is no longer there." with reference to the photo of the empty lot at the listed address.  And, in other areas, it is not contested whether a photo really depicts a given ship or flower or whatever.  If the photo at Marigold was not a pic of that flower, someone would probably have contested it.  And likewise a photo in a historic site article that stands uncontested becomes more and more obviously a true depiction of that place.  About the Colona, IL one, there is a link for any viewer to "Report an error or a problem with this picture".  I don't think you seriously doubt that it is a picture in Colona, IL, or whether it is a Thunderbolt type of siren sits on the fire station. -- do  ncr  am  02:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Oh come on. This page has been here for 5 years and hasn't hurt anybody.  The reason that Wikipedia is driving people away is because things like Lists of TV Episodes get automatic notability, but other interesting lists do not.  These sirens were the sound of the cold war for millions of Americans who grew up in that era and just because it isn't notable to people who have their face buried in smart phones doesn't mean it should get thrown on the trash.  Take your Wikinazism elsewhere and consider using it to make article better and not worse.Sturmovik (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I rather agree. It may be pointed out by others that "it is harmless" can be labelled as some supposedly invalid AFD argument, but I simply do agree.  Tag to improve, and Keep, is what I say too.  Also, the nom states that this info could be at a "hobbyist" website, as if that is bad, when it is not.  There are lots of great wikipedia lists that were done first by hobbyists, and that are valid wikipedia topics.  I am thinking about lists of covered bridges, and train engines, and cobblestone houses.  Being addressed by hobbyists is a suggestive indicator of quality and notability and likely general reader interest. -- do  ncr  am  22:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment How do you propose that the article be improved? There's little chance of reliable sources being found, as the page represents pure original research. Tagging it and waiting for sources to materialize is pointless. If you're aware of sources, or have a compelling argument that sources are likely to exist, then please say so. In the meantime, the author is welcome to move the list to the Cold War Wiki, which doesn't seem to have any obvious prohibitions against original research. Pburka (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is, unfortunatly, a wholly non-notable subject. The arguments above are WP:ITSINTERESTING and WP:NOHARM; the fact an article has been here "for five years and hasn't hurt anybody" doesn't make it a valid subject, and being "interesting" does not establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, either "it's interesting" or "what's the harm?" are not good rationales for keeping an article. Otherwise my opinion is as User:Ad Orientem.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete fails WP:GNG Secret account 00:58, 17 February 2014 (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.