Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126

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 redirect‎ to Electronic stability control#Regulation. Keep arguments need to explain more clearly why they feel it meets GNG, not simply say that the article meets it. Most failed to do that. There is some consensus to remove this article. When there is not consensus within that on whether to delete or redirect, it is prudent to go with the less destructive option. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126

[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)

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [1] [2] [3]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per
WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under
WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries.
WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or
split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The
slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
"The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JoelleJay below, based on quality of sourcing. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electronic_stability_control#Regulation: where it is already covered in as much detail as is encyclopedically warranted. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted. Simply claiming that something is "unencyclopedic" is one of the arguments to avoid listed in the essay WP:ATA. James500 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a section of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states the following: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I invite you to reconsider the accuracy of your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
No-one has argued that more detail should be included "solely because it is true or useful". More detail can be included without the article ceasing to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". James500 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted which is not a correct statement, as written it could be justification for articles of infinite length. And all you've managed to do thus far is add one sentence about a "sine with dwell test" (whatever on earth that even means). What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) are sources that give significant coverage to the regulation. What more is there to be said about this regulation? If it can't be expanded beyond a stub it clearly should be redirected to
WP:NOPAGE (and that's even generously assuming the regulation is notable, which has yet to be demonstrated either). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You are twisting my words. The statement "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted" does not mean what you claim it means. As far as NOTEVERYTHING is concerned, it is a correct statement because that policy does not forbid the inclusion of "more detail" that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I did not say "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If I had meant to say "even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" I would have said so in express words. There is no policy, guideline or consensus that forbids "more detail" only because it is more detail. James500 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already supplied you with sources that satisfy GNG including [4] [5] [6] and others. What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) is any explanation of why the coverage in these sources is allegedly not significant, or why the additional information they contain about this regulation should allegedly not be added to the article. James500 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you had actually read those sources, you would know what the Sine with Dwell test is. James500 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, no problem. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Tens of thousands of engineering papers reference the technical standards that their study subjects must meet; this is routine and does not mean each standard warrants a standalone article. Further, a ResearchGate preprint (not RS) and a technical paper by a company with clear financial involvement with FMVSS regulations do not count towards GNG. We cannot be basing our coverage of federal regulations on what the commercial entities being regulated say about them, that is not going to be NPOV. The most relevant content is already present on the suggested page where it is better contextualized. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (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.