Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Centennial Light/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

Centennial Light

 * Dec 2006 FAC.

Done some work on the continuity of the prose as suggested and should be consistent now. The article is as through as it could possibly be on the subject of a 100 year old light bulb. Not sure what else could be done, but am open to constructive criticism and suggestions for getting it up to FAC.--The_stuart 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Object refs not in a consistent format, suggest cite format. ALso, this is extrememly short, can it be expanded? Rlevse 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please attach retrieval dates to the online references? This is really helpful when links go dead.--Rmky87 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Access dates have been added. --The_stuart 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm worried that so much of the article cites only centennialbulb.org, and this is kind of connected with the length of the article and the amount of information it presents. This may be one of those topics that doesn't have enough source material to generate a Featured Article. Why not make it a Good Article instead? Melchoir 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be citing the website mainly as an archive of other materials (the refs, btw, ought to reflect the original sources, and some of them do). So I don't see that as a problem. As far as the length, that doesn't strike me as a major problem since the article appears to be comprehensive. However, it might be possible to merge with Longest-lasting light bulbs, spruce up what is already there, and thus achieve an article of equal quality that has a bit more beef. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article Longest-lasting light bulbs was created because of a complaint that they had nothing to do with The Centennial Light. --The_stuart 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Leaning towards objection but can't find a substantial reason to object but no compelling reasons to support...as I have to agree with the above and some of the unresolved issues of the previous FAC.  Personally, I don't even think this is notable enough to even be an article on Wikipedia.  After all, it's not the only long-lasting light bulb, so I don't see what makes this unique enough to be notable on its own. Perhaps taking this to Peer Review (as recommended but ignored in the previous FAC) would give you some pointers on where to go. Because while being a article about a novel story, this is like a warm-and-fuzzy/personal interest consolation piece they fit in the last minute of the nightly news broadcast on slow news days (something that was Charles Kuralt's specialty), and doesn't have enough bulk or notability to merit being an FAC. Though, I will say the lead section is too small.  It barely makes the perfunctory three sentences to make a decent paragraph and doesn't prepare you sufficiently for the rest of the article. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Although there are other long lasting light bulbs The Centennial Light is THE longest lasting light bulb, and (as throughly explained in the article) has been recognized as such by every major major news outlet, several elected officials (incluiding the president of the United States) and governing bodies, as well as all the entities that keep records of world records. Your opinion of it's notability is POV and therefore irrelevant, not to mention the fact that we have FAs on stranger and more obscure topics. I do agree this article is lacking bulk, but I'm not sure what else can be said about the bulb that hasn't already been said. --The_stuart 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My late great-grandmother got birthday cards from the President of the United States, mentions in the newspapers, received proclamations from elected officials, and even appeared on Television because of her age. Does that make her worthy of an article here at Wikipedia, or at the extreme, an FA?  Nope. This is the equivalent of a circus sideshow. Only it's a little more humble than the bearded lady. I'll not object, but I won't support.  I just think this is more a candidate for AFD than for FA. And your protest doesn't negate the fact that I suggested you improve the lead. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Submit it to AFD, then. If it isn't deleted there, there is no excuse for it to not be an FA, if it meets the quality requirements. Notability is not a part of WP:WIAFA, nor is subject matter. Tito xd (?!?) 23:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably should, and likely will, as for AFD, why I don't believe it's FA material, see below. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object, due to inconsistent formatting of references. Try also adding a very brief summary of the history of the bulb as the second paragraph of the lede. Tito xd (?!?) 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OBJECT. After much consideration, I've shifted my above comment to an objection for the following reasons (some criteria, some not):  (1) 2c a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents implies more bulk than this article currently presents. While it may comply with "appropriate length" in criteria 4, this article is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified stub. (2) WP:LEAD.  The lead section has not been improved despite above comments.  However, it is hard to get a comprehensive lead out of an article that could be characterized as little better than a stub. (3)  Under 1(a) I don't find the prose to be brilliant or compelling. (4)  The references are not complete, nor do they include access dates, per WP:CITE, and are inconsistently formatted.  While it may be "factually accurate" per 1(c), it is not compliant with the terms of the MOS and other Wikipedia policies (criteria 2)  (5) I firmly believe that this article belongs in AFD for which I'll possibly recommend it after this FAC is concluded (depends on my time, etc.).  While I'll leave it's fate to those at AFD, I'll vote to merge this with the long-lasting light bulbs article. Something more worthy of AFD, even if a well-referenced stub, by principle, shouldn't be an FA. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain with Comment I am surprised that anyone would be such a deletionist that they would want this article deleted. I contributed to this article because I have seen the light bulb featured on multiple reliable nationwide (America) television programs over the past 5 to 10 years. It is easily notable, and its notability is verified. RoyalbroilT : C 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't a matter of it not being "notable", it's a matter of this being a tried-and-true story that is all nice and warm and fuzzy and can fill a few minutes on a slow news day. We don't have articles for every one of these stories (like the kid who used the profits from his lemonade stand to buy tents for the homeless or toys for cancer-stricken kids), nor do we have articles for every circus sideshow, bearded lady, tossed midget, etc.  When we start having articles for The World's Largest Collection of the Smallest Copies of the World's Largest Things (it exists, near Wilson, Kansas, USA), perhaps this article will merit inclusion, only by then though, Wikipedia will have gone batty.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the kid's name, I'd like to start an article on him! --The_stuart 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a story being "nice and warm and fuzzy" isn't a reason for deletion. This is clearly notable and as far as I can see, doesn't conflict with any other policies. Trebor 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the time being. I think it's pretty comprehensive, and I firmly disagree with any arguments based on it being short; that's not an actionable complaint. The lead could do with a bit of work, as could the reference formatting, but it's not far off. Trebor 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.