Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mains electricity by country


 * 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Mains electricity by country

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing AFD for anon user who writes: "As an unregistered user, I cannot complete the full deletion process, but the procedure requires me to post my reasons here.

I removed much of the table some short while ago because it was largely unreferenced. The table was subsequently restored with an embeded reference in the article to the IEC website on world plugs. I note that there is sume discussion and agreement that this IEC website is incomplete and inaccurate and has been tagged as an 'unreliable source', not without any disagreement. I note that SSHamilton stated above that this article, "...does not meet the the normal standards of WP and it would be a reasonable proposal to call for its deletion." I also note that there was and still is much bickering over the interpretation of the IEC website, which has been noted above as a guide rather than any reliable reference.

I thus now propose that the article be deleted on the grounds that its content is not referenced to the standard expected of Wikipedia and the continued disgreement over the actual content is evidence that the material is controversial and doe not even have consencus for remaining. 31.52.11.70 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"


 * Completed AFD process then Keep. Article has many references. Continued disagreement over contents is not a basis for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Observation: ITYWF that the nomination was based on the fact the vast majority of the article content is based on a single unreliable source that has been acknowledged in the article to be so. I B Wright (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly an encyclopaedic topic. Edit disputes should be resolved on the talk page and sourcing concerns by editing. I notice that the page is being actively improved. Already arguably meets WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 9.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Appears to have been nominated by anon as part of an intense edit war. No valid reason for deletion. Article may need full edit protection with multiple editor blocks. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep fairly referenced important list, no reason to delete.  Alex discussion ★ 09:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if there are doubts over the current source, the information is easily sourceable, as many travel guides tell you what plug, voltage, etc, are used in specific countries (certainly Lonely Planet does). Disputes over content can be handled in other ways. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

--->The following Comments copied from Article Talk page.<---


 * On the fence: Although I cannot fault the logic, the article is in the main largely correct (in my opinion which I accept does not have any credence in the reliable reference stakes). It is just a matter of finding the right references which would be a better result.  It has been tagged for some time as requiring references and these have been slowly appearing.  However, there is a very long way to go.  If this article must be deleted, it would be preferable if it could be moved to a temporary location so that the references can be added as required.  I feel that there must be someone who has access to the necessary standards to populate this article and maybe even correct the inaccuracies and omissions.  I am aware that generally, elsewhere than the US, organisations charge ridiculously large sums of money to access both national and European wide standards on anything.   I B Wright (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is too much work here to simply throw it away. Would it be an acceptable solution to go ahead and use the questionable sources, but document the problems with them? Jeh (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added: Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE: "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." There is good, eventually sourceable content, and development and improvement is in process. The ongoing discussions about the quality of sources are a matter for dispute resolution, not deletion. Jeh (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article has been vastly improved in the past week, mostly due to the efforts of SSHamilton (whose quote the anonymous proposer takes completely out of context as it dates back to November, several weeks before the improvements were started). Where the sources are imperfect that has been highlighted and the reasons given. Deucharman (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article still needs a lot of work, but it has been improving recently, thanks to the help of several editors (even when they don't completely agree with one another all the time). The topic is inherently difficult to reference to the highest Wikipedia standards because of restricted access to official standards documents, but the editors are making a valiant effort and the topic is worthwhile.  Reify-tech (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I hope that it is obvious that I am doing my best to improve this article, despite the childish antics of some editors. Many thanks to those who are supporting the effort, I have not yet finished, but it would help if more editors would contribute good references.  SSHamilton (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Observation: Your efforts to improve the referencing in this article are commendable. The observation that I have, is that even though I did not really support 31.52.11.70's AfD, I am now rather glad that I took a neutral stance.  Even though it is clear that the AfD is almost certain to be defeated, it has had the effect of galvanising improvement to the article's referencing, so the AfD has had a positive effect.  I don't know whether the refencing will ever become perfect.  I have my own views of the standards of referencing in articles such as this and some other types where proper referencing is all but impossible, but unfortunately they do not square with the standards required by policy and enforced by the admins.  Now all we need to do is get the childish editor to stop trying to incorporate fringe theories about what he thinks doesn't exist (and can't positively prove that it doesn't).

--->End of comments copied from talk page**<--- I B Wright (talk) 17:39, 9 January 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.