Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone in United States history

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 . Although perhaps "moot" would be better: the article has been so extensively been expanded after the nomination that the reasons given in it no longer apply. Sandstein 20:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone in United States history

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A weird hybrid kind of WP:COATRACK article with basically just one sentence about the history of the telephone in the US (the AT&T issue), and nothing about the role of the telephone in the history of the US (which is what the title awkwardly suggests). The one source is from 1988, but is used to make claims about the "current" situation of women and phones, which is for such rapidly evolving topics (both the use of telephones, and the role of men and women in society) not acceptable. WP:TNT if people believe this title could host an acceptable article, or simply delete if even the title is not really worth keeping (or at most as a redirect). Fram (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Seems like it is still an ongoing creation-in-progress, but I agree that it's not appropriate in mainspace in its current state. Would benefit from incubation in draftspace so the creator, who is an experienced editor, can continue to work on it. Curbon7 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep I just started the article today--and started by making links to current articles (most of which deal with the electrical technology), plus the working bibliography I am using to find historical material. As for "current" -- this is a history article and so far there is only one sentence on post 2000 developments like the smartphone. It is cited to the standard history. As a work in progress it is already well advanced in terms of bibliography and links--and it covers a major topic that somehow got missed.Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, yes, this is what draft-space is for. This article has the potential to be fascinating, well-referenced, and exactly the sort of stuff that an encyclopaedia should contain. But although Wikipedia articles don't need to be perfectly finished in main-space (WP is a work-in-progress), draft-space is the nursery in which articles can be nurtured until they're sufficiently well-grown to stand on their own two feet (even if someone comes along later and adds a few more feet...). Rjensen, if your worry about draft-space is that you don't want to go through AfC, you don't have to. You can move your draft to main-space yourself, when it's ready. Elemimele (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The arguments against this article appear to be "it's not very good". I fail to see any procedural argument on NOTE or similar grounds, and the editor appears to be actively editing it. I'm inclined to give the editor some time, it's not like there is any particular hurry here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... I should add, although I went with draftify, I'd have no problems with a weak keep. I intended the use of draft-space to protect the article from excessive criticism while it's still half-finished. I would not favour draftify as a covert-deletion; I want to see this article back in main-space as soon as it's ready. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable. Like Rjensen pointed out, there is still much to be added as the article is in infancy. GuardianH (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep as the nominator's rational no longer applies since the article has been expanded since this AFD was created (barely an hour and a half after the article was created). Premature AFD. IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The topic might be notable. If this is kept, consider renaming to history of the telephone in the United States? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title "history of the telephone in the United States" does sound a bit better, but it indexes under "history" along with thousands of articles....Putting "Telephone" first solves that problem. More importasnt is that the page is not about phones as objects in themselves--rather it's about how their spread and use fit into the social and economic history of the U.S. Rjensen (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, please keep the title as it is. The history of the telephone in the united states is a completely different subject, it means the history of the phone, not an article about how the phone has influenced history. This may be one of those rare examples where we should have an article whose title begins "The", as, were you writing a book, you would undoubtedly entitle it "The Telephone in United States History". Elemimele (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject may be notable–how can the telephone's impact not be notable, and which has certainly been covered by many authors, such as John Brooks–this article provides no sensible overview of history, nor impact of the telephone on American society. Especially the profound intertwining of Bell System practices and policies with development of telecommunication in general and American corporate philosophy and regulation, from the patent system to the implications of the Kingsbury commitment and the telecommunications act, labor relations, industrial management and workforce practices are ignored, and it does not appear that the author appreciates those aspects. The text does not convey a theme for the article. This is instead a random assemblage of factoids covered probably better already in various WP articles, and I suspect adapted from them. The language is often not encyclopedic, nor enlightening. An article with such a vague and open-ended title needs to have a clear vision of its subject matter and scope, otherwise it will become a bottomless pit of stuff, which it seems already. A junk pile. kbrose (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the topic of the impact of the telephone on American society & culture and has not been covered. John Brooks book was sponsored by ATT and it focuses on the ATT leaders down to 1970, with very little on the phone's impact on USA. The best cultural history (by Fischer) covers three small town in California before 1940. So there is no published model to follow. I have not tried to create my own interpretive history--that would be original research. However I have tried to report what many diverse experts have written, and I have tried to provide a good bibliography that will help editors and readers do their own further research. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not cover that however, in any manner or hint. A superficial notion of notability of a topic is not a reason to start an article without real supporting content, especially if you think that the topic has not actually been covered comprehensively. WP is not a place to start that, so the article should indeed be deleted. One reason for the lack of a comprehensive history is that the topic is too large. Telephony and telegraphy are disruptive technologies, just like the Internet, that cannot be covered comprehensively, as the entire society and national order and practices are reinvented or reshaped. The has been true for all communication technologies in human history. kbrose (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On April 23 Kbrose wrote (above): that it has "certainly been covered by many authors." but today all those authors are mysteriously gone--despite Kbrose's "certainly". Now he says that really big topics like the telephone and the internet are too big for Wikipedia. Well in fact dozens of scholars have written about subtopics on the telephone and I have been summarizing their published results-- I think that is what Wikipedia does best. (perhaps this is the "real supporting content" that Kbrose asks for.) An article that cover the telephone in 192 countries would be "too big" but I limit this to USA (plus a touch of Canada). Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable topic, has enough sources to remain in mainspace, needs cleanup but AfD is not for cleanup. // Timothy :: talk 16:33, 26 April 2023 (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.