Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 New York City steam explosion

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 New York City steam explosion

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

per WP:NOT#NEWS this is no more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure on keep or delete, but certainly more notable than the '09 Orlando shooting, given the place (downtown Manhattan, a few miles from the former World Trade Center location), the time (six years after 9/11) and the nature of the event (a sudden explosion sending debris and clouds high into the air). Yes, I know, it wasn't another al-Qaeda attack, but I'd bet it probably scared the shit out of thousands of people. Mandsford (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, well sourced, long established (July 2007), nominated without edit summary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- long established? what? we can now no longer delete articles if they have managed to go unnoticed by people such as myself for x years? that is absurd. if i create an article on Barry Bond's knee and it goes unnoticed for two years it does not suddenly become immune from deletion. and the fact that i nominated it without edit summary is as irrelevant as the fact that my name starts with an m is. what is next? are you going to vote keep because your grocer sells snickers? Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has 37 references. Justification given for deletion was another deletion debate. Dew Kane (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- wrong. the justification given was WP:NOT#NEWS. maybe you should read the nominations before condemning them. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting was cited as an example of the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS. more to the point that article had plenty of references but those references alone were not sufficient because all those references fell under WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal discussion about involved editors belongs on their talk pages. This page is for discussing content.

- Comment It has been pointed out to you before that "it is not really polite reply to each keep individually - say your piece, move on and let others have their say." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - you threw politeness out the window when you misrepresented my original argument as though there were not any justifications when in fact there were. also if you really peopled people should say their piece and move on why did you reply here and not on my talk page? maybe Orpheus's rule (since Orpheus obviously dictates wikipedia policy) applies to me but not to you? Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage from multiple sources. At some point everything is "news", but this seems significant enough (as testified to by the coverage) to transcend that. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep - WP:NOT#NEWS explains that enduring notability is what's required (no routine stuff) and then points to Wikipedia:Notability (events). If we're going to use that guideline, then:

Does the event have lasting effects and large geographic scope? I think so.
Does the coverage continue after the event? I'm not sure. The article doesn't include any sources from after 2007, and few more than a month afterwards.
Is the coverage in depth and diverse? I don't think anyone is calling that into question.

It's the lack of continued coverage that prevents me from !voting "keep", but the effects, scope, and source quality that keep me from !voting "delete". --Explodicle (T/C) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a City Hall hearing.. that is some long lasting effect. Thomas Menino cites the incident as one of many justifications for increased regulation of Boston's steam distribution network? why not create a wikipedia article on every justification he gave! Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking in further detail, I think these sources are in sufficient detail and long enough afterwards to constitute enduring notability. Changing to "keep". --Explodicle (T/C) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - the presence of a crack constitutes notability? strange - i do not recall reading anything about that at WP:N Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can if you step on it and it causes an adverse effect on your mother's back.--Milowent (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficiently sourced and notable to retain.--Milowent (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hopefully this event will be taught in whatever college classes or training classes city managers and chief engineers have to do in order to get their jobs. I'm sure it'll be a case example somewhere, and responsible city managers will investigate or consider replacing aging infrastructure. With events like this and that bridge collapsing, hopefully it'll be in people's mind and something will be done. A notable and lasting effect, not just a quick news flash. Dream Focus 10:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fine article - well written and sourced. There is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2010 (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.