Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight saving time in Germany

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 - As the other collections of articles (e.g. Daylight saving time in North America) were not specifically discussed below, I believe it would be inappropriate to declare a consensus for them. However, if someone were to nominate those articles, they should make a note of this discussion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight saving time in Germany

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

It seems we have a number of Daylight saving time in [country] articles, grouped through a "Topic in continent" templates. I don't think they are notable. They should be merged either to "Daylight saving time in [Continent] article, or to the "Time in [Country]] article. For example, the article this AfD is named after, Daylight saving time in Germany, should be merged either to Daylight saving time in Europe or to Time in Germany. Same for all articles listed below. In few cases we may just need to delete a redirect. Most if not all of those articles are unfereferenced and seem to have been created by TZ master (talk · contribs) few months ago, often with the edit summary "copy from Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world" (which I guess could be another target for merging them back to).

This is just for Europe, there is exactly the same mess with Daylight saving time in North America, Daylight saving time in Africa, Daylight saving time in South America, Daylight saving time in Asia and Daylight saving time in Oceania. Hopefully somebody can finish tagging and listing the articles here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge, in spades! Daylight saving time is hugely notable, with enormous amounts of discussion in reputable, independent sources. Its implementation and history varies from country to country so it makes perfect sense to have per-country articles. Although the current article on DST in Germany is unsourced, it surely can be sourced (assuming what it says is true) and the lack of sources is not a reason for deletion: AfD is not cleanup. Dricherby (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge as I had not realised there were already Time in X articles. Dricherby (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having Daylight saving time in the United States outside Time in the United States lets readers easier access the topic. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any reason why Bulgaria is listed six times?! Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would support merges to the articles Time in Germany, etc, unless there is too much material to include on the Time in X page; as Dricherby says this is an interesting topic that can attract a lot of debate (particularly in the UK). However, many of these articles are very short. Note that if you want to propose a merge rather than a deletion, you should go through this complex procedure rather than posting on AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge nothing worth saying about DST in a country which could not accurately be included in the main time by country article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. People need to stop scrambling over one another to post their favourite boilerplate responses at XfD. "AfD is not cleanup" does not mean that any article which is theoretically a child of another should be merged there. In this particular case, it's not even obvious which is the correct parent, as the material belongs equally in time in Germany and in daylight saving time ("in Europe"). So what do we do with this page, keep it as a disambiguation page? It is linked to from nothing but Central European Time and the other DST articles created by the same user. In fact, even the "time in X" articles appear to be largely another walled garden of articles-for-the-sake-of-articles. There is no value in polluting the global namespace with deeply unlikely search terms like this. Be rid of the lot of them, and let editors work on material for some reason other than "there is an article on a subject in a certain country, so I shall create articles on that subject for every other country in the world to make things even". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody proposed that "AfD is not cleanup" means what you just wrote and, apart from my initial !vote, which I changed days before you commented, nobody has proposed keeping the material in independent articles. Are you proposing that the history of daylight saving time in, for example, Germany has no place on Wikipedia whatsoever? If the material does have a place on Wikipedia and, since everybody so far has agreed it's not worth its own article, the question becomes: where should it go? "Time in Europe" seems wrong to me, as such an article would not be about time in Europe in general but, rather, about time in each European country individually. Would information on French Guiana appear under Europe or South America? How would Hawaii fit into "Time in North America"? Alternatively, the information could be merged into the articles for the timezones but then what do you do about countries such as Portugal that have moved from one timezone to another several times? (I also disagree with your characterization of the pages as a walled garden but, again, since nobody is proposing tha the pages remain in their current form, I don't think it's worth arguing that point.) Dricherby (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. DST is a notable topic for every country where it was observed or introduction was in high level of discussion. "by country"-articles are widespread series in Wikipedia and have the benefit that they can be used by country editors and by topic editors. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above keep. In Russia, for example, daylight saving time and its recent cancellation have been hugely controversial and widely discussed. A huge article can be written on this topic. Guess the situation is not very different in other states with DST. GreyHood ^Talk 21:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Koopatrev (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Daylight savings time has significant impact, thus meaning that WP:NOT is met. Daylight savings varies widely by country, so I am opposed to merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJ Wine (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:NOTABILITY? WP:NOT is the page "What Wikipedia is not". Notability is established by the topic having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", not an assertion of "significant impact". Dricherby (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2012 (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.