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 merge to Marcus Hook Range Rear Light. Renames are more a discussion for the target talk page. slakr^\ talk / 13:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Hook Range Front Light

[edit]

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

This "lighthouse" is not described at any length in any of the sources we have normally used, and all evidence shows it to be a minor automated light whose description exceeds what's in the light list only in giving a date of construction. As a rule we have not considered these to be notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides the coverage by the book already listed in the article, a United States Department of Commerce publication gives more substantial coverage as does the book Delaware Lighthouses and Range Lights. [1][2] --Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference you supply gives marginally more information but the USLHS and USCG light lists, annual reports, and Notice to Mariners are routine coverage which mention every AtoN in the country. They cannot be considered to confer notability. Mangoe (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE applies to WP:News Events which of course this is not. Even if it did, WP:ROUTINE states examples such as "wedding announcements" and "sports scores" which this coverage is nothing of a sort. In fact WP:GNG, which does apply here, in its definition of "sources" clearly states "reports by government agencies" as an acceptable source. --Oakshade (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking English, not Wikipedia keywords. You can find this level documentation for any aid to navigation constructed long enough ago, because for instance light lists in the early 1900s included all this information. Yet every post and lantern would not be held notable by a reasonable person. The light lists do not establish notability. Period. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The report by the USCG is not a "list," it's a report. Period. Mangoe, if you'd like to change WP:GNG to not allow coverage by government reports to establish notability, you need to make your case on the WP:GNG talk page, not push a new agenda in a single AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do not establish notability because those concerned with lighthouses do not take them so. It is possible to find "reports" from the 1800s which talk in minute detail about every minute change to every light and post in the nation, and the American Local Notice to Mariners continues on in the same vein. I could, if sufficiently possessed of the urge, write a history of every navigational aid in the country using the federal sources. But people don't care.

When it comes down to it, then, you are the one who is pushing a new theory of notability. We have tended not to write articles on unmanned automated lights, because as a rule these are not what people think of when they think of "lighthouses". The division is not absolute and in a few cases articles have been written on these, and this may well end up being one of those cases. But you are the one who is trying to establish a precedent of "all American aids to navigation are notable, because they all appear in official reports." One could argue that this light is notable due to its coverage in the book of photographs; I have tended to avoid using those in lighthouse articles because their accuracy tends to be sketchy, but I'm not utterly adverse to them as a source of notability. The use of the routine LHS and CG lists and reports, however, will not do. They are relentlessly comprehensive, and nobody is going to support writing the hundred thousand articles which that standard would demand. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody" is a big term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Marcus Hook Range Rear Light and re-direct to Marcus Hook Range Lights. This is how the US National Park Service web site combines the two navigational aids. Blue Riband► 02:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename per Blue Riband. Together there is enough for an article based both on notability and on Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. Having the two with seperate articles, though, is just silly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the wikipedia topic, but perhaps develop the topic and then redirect to a new merged and renamed topic. This should have been discussed at a Talk page, not AFD'd. It seems obvious to me there should be at least a redirect from this topic title, deleting was never appropriate. There's information in a document linked from one of the articles, that the two range lights together provided means for a river pilot to navigate downstream through a channel by keeping the rear and front lights aligned vertically. It doesn't make a lot of sense to discuss them separately without referencing the other. Neither article currently describes their relationship. --do ncr am 19:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 9 February 2014 (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.