Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Los Angeles power outage

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS so KEEP by default. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 03:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

2005 Los Angeles power outage
As a Californian, I can say first-hand that this is not notable. Maybe it's notable enough for Wikinews, but not here. The outage lasted only a few hours; this kind of thing happens every day somewhere in the developed world. The only reason it's a news story is because it happened in LA. How long would "2005 Bakersfield power outage" last? [ +t,  +c ,  +m  ] 04:09, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I am living an hour and a half from LA, and it was pretty much a non-event. I hear threats of losing power and saving energy here, so it is nothing really new. Zach (Sound Off) 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Having a hard time justifying this as notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand: The event is significant, because it shows the vulnerabilities in the current power grid infrastructure. There has been several NSF funded projects to deal these, being part of one such project, I have studied other large scale power outages too, and the domino-effect of one small misake being multiplied into such large scale failures is definitely interesting. --Ragib 04:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into a new article on large scale power outages since it'snot intrinsicly interesting then, otherwise Delete. Dlyons493 08:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a huge power outage, which happens sometimes. This has not yet turned out to be any sort of devasting event/terrorist attack. It is just not noteworthy enough to be an article. If there is a major power outage list, I guess it could go there. Voice of All  (talk)  04:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I live in LA and the city was a mess for hours, people were screaming about terrorism and a state of emergency was declaired. I also think it's important because one mistake shut down half the county. Sean Bonner 04:58, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was a limited power outage, worth a 5-minute report on NPR but that's it. No one outside of LA County and damned few within will remember this a year from now. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP and move to Wikinews. --Cool Cat Talk 05:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC) ,
 * See below for why your vote is not a permitted action. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete'. It may be an entry on a "list of power outages". Unless a power outage has international coverage front page I do not want articles on them. --Cool Cat Talk 01:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Merge to wikinews article-- or expand it into wikibook case study on power grid failures). Any vote to keep it is pure Recentism. People thought it was related to Al Qaida but it wasn't. Funny Coincidence, but that alone doesn't merit a full encyclopedia article. If it blows up as a scandal or coverup or something then sure make it an article, but for now it is at best an interesting anecdote, ergo wikinews.MPS 05:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this is rather a non-event in the grand scheme of things --Clawed 05:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Calton. Let's have a sense of proportion here, people! MCB 07:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews. --Apyule 08:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See below for why your vote is not a permitted action. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with an article on large power outages. Apologies for my last vote too. --Apyule 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete not important at all. Martin  09:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge. If this is a truly historic power-outage then it can be merged/added to "History of Los Angeles" but I don't see anything historic about it. As news it is already old. Is there an article about electrical grids that would be an appopriate place to list this as an example of utility fragility? -Willmcw 09:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very few power outages deserve articles and this isn't one of them. &mdash; Trilobite 09:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 10:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There are articles about less notable things on Wikipedia, yet are they tagged for deletion? This was a newsmaker in the US. CFIF 11:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * News belong on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Feel free to bring the less notable things up for a VfD too, if they're equally unencyclopaedic. — ceejayoz &#9733;  14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not encyclopaedic, might be suitable to have a page that deals with power shortage in CA as a general topic, but one probably exists already. Usrnme h8er 11:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It may have future historical interest.  Malcolm Morley 12:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Like? — ceejayoz &#9733; 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily verifiable and likely of interest to readers. - SimonP 13:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor event. Pilatus 13:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some workers messed up some wiring and the lights went out for a bit. Non-notable. — ceejayoz &#9733;  14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant enough to receive international press coverage. Also notable for its use in highlighting weaknesses in the power grid. Additional trivia interest for happening on the day Al Queda threatened to attack the city. 23skidoo 15:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and/or move to WikiNews It is important and relevant... especially at this time in American's history, and as other's said, shows an important insight into how Los Angeles is run/how things are handeled. Since it is current news, I believe moving it to WikiNews, and linking to it temporarily from the wikipedia Los Angeles page might be the best solution. -- NatsukiGirl \talk 17:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See below for why your vote is not a permitted action. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * lol, sucks to be you, but I said keep OR move. Therefore, since one suggestion is invalid you LOGCIALLY move to my FIRST responce. So... in repeating myself, which I hate to do for people who can't seem to put two-and-two together, keep was my vote. Thanks, have a good day now. -- NatsukiGirl \talk 23:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Wikipedia is a news source regardless of the existence of Wikinews lots of issues  | leave me a message 17:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  It cannot contain primary source material.  It is Wikinews that is the news source, that was indeed created with the specific intention of being a free news source.  Wikinews is explicitly permitted to contain primary source material. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pedantic misinterpretation on your part. Wikipedia is a news source because, by our inclusive standards, we cover events that are momentary headlines.  We don't allow original research duh.  At no point did I suggest the contrary and this article distills info from news sources.  Wikipedia is a news source regardless of wikinews.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 23:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Southern California's energy management (c.f. one of the hoarding allegations made against Enron) is an interesting and important topic. If we don't have an article yet, we surely will one day. Then, I think it is likely that we will merge in this article. Until that time, it seems poor form to delete the raw data in GFDL form. Pcb21| Pete 17:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the California electricity crisis article? This would at best be a minor footnote to that. Average Earthman 23:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. California's energy management belongs in an article on California's energy management. A short blackout is not encyclopaedic. Congratulations, your power went out. Mine went out a couple of weeks ago too, and for longer. This ain't that blackout that lasted a long period and knocked out the entire eastern seaboard, this is a brief interuption that absolutely nobody in North America would give the faintest damn about if it didn't happen in a major American city. Lord Bob 18:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that it is something that people give "the faintest damn" about. But you want to excise the information anyway? Seems a bit odd! Pcb21| Pete 18:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If any article appears on Wikipedia, it's because somebody gave the faintest damn about it, so much so that they were willing to use up their time to surf on over here and create a page that said "steve duschainme is a butttfac!!!!" or whatever. Nobody ever created a Wikipedia article by apathy. It's distinguishing the articles that are encyclopaedic and those that aren't that's the trick, and the purpose of AfD. In my opinion, despite the fact that people care about it (just like people care about Mr. Duschainme's butt for a face), this article is not what Wikipedia needs. Lord Bob 18:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Equating this article with vandalism. Good one! Pcb21| Pete 08:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My equation of vandalism went only so far as to say "people care about vandalism, and people care about this too." People care about World War II, people care about every article on this wiki, that's why they wrote the article. People care about the fact that the keyboard on one of the library iMacs is broken, for crying out loud. The fact that people, as I said above, "give the faintest damn" about something does not in of itself make that something encyclopaedic. It may make it newsworthy (and I doubt anybody will argue against this blackout being newsworthy on some level), but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Lord Bob 17:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this article is kept, then move it to September 12, 2005 Los Angeles power outage or something along those lines. This surely wasn't the only LA power outage this year, and probably won't be the last. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, much of the news coverage mentions that just 2 weeks earlier half a million people were blacked out in the L.A. area, so the current title is inappropriate. R. S. Shaw 21:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note to all editors voting to transwiki: Transwikification to Wikinews is not legally permitted, and any such votes here are simply null and void. Wikinews is public domain.  It is not legally permitted to put GFDL material into the public domain.  There's another reason that transwikification is not an option, too.  As is nowadays commonly the case, Wikinews had an article before Wikipedia did.  Wikinews already has an news article on this story, at Los Angeles undergoing large power outage. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'd always just assumed that it was GFDL too.  Good thing I've never copied anything over there myself. --Apyule 01:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. There probably would have been substantially fewer "keep" votes if the listing of this article on AfD had been postponed for a couple of days to let the wave of recentism subside. -R. S. Shaw 21:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable event. --Carnildo 21:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely unencyclopedic. N (t/c) 21:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was featured in the late news on TV here in Austria, with a correspondent calling in live. Given the great distance to LA, it passes the bar of notability. Martg76 21:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not everything on the news is automatically encyclopedic - it is worthy of Wikinews, though. N (t/c)
 * The event didn't make newspaper headlines in Britain. Does that count as evidence the incident was in fact minor? Pilatus 11:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Deftly restricting yourself to newspapers I see. The event happened late in the evening British time.. too late for the next day's papers. By the time today's papers came around, it didn't deserve headlines. It of course featured heavily on the rolling news channels and online in Britain. Pcb21| Pete 11:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If the news aren't newsworthy any more the day after the event they shouldn't feature in an encyclopedia. The LA blackout was local (one substation taken out), nowhere near the scale of the 2003 North America blackout. Next door, at Wikinews, the issue has been covered extensively, no need to repeat it here. In the long run there ought to be an article on California energy management. Pilatus 11:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Although it didn't last for too long, it did have large enough of an effect to deserve an encyclopedia entry.Amren (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, we don't need an article for every power outage in history. -GregAsche (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, a virtual non-event certainly not worthy of an article. SD6-Agent 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article --Camw 22:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - affected millions of people, major media coverage, Wikipedia permits "encyclopedic" articles on news stories. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A bad rainstorm affects millions of people.  Found pets get news stories.  Are we going to add every edition of the entire LA Times to Wikipedia?  Non-notable!  --A D Monroe III 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. non-notable. it's just news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W0rd (talk • contribs)
 * keep the vunerablity of crucial infrastructure for a vast metropolis is very very notable and wikiworthy. Sabine's Sunbird 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * An article on that subject would be more wikiworthy for sure, but this is about one particular blackout, and doesn't really touch on wider problems of electricity supply in Los Angeles. It reads like a news story and tells the reader nothing but the what, where and when of an event that is not notable in itself. If someone wants to write an article about the wider issue they can go ahead, but this is not that article. We have a fairly good article at California electricity crisis if anyone wants to get to work expanding our discussion of the issues surrounding that. &mdash; Trilobite 08:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd have no complaints if the article was merged somewhere appropriate, or moved and rewritten on the subject. This is only one symptom of the vunerability I spoke of, but I still think it warants a mention. Sabine's Sunbird 14:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a really significant event. I have a hard time imagining anyone finding this article useful in a couple of months time. An article on how vulnerable the infrastructure is (with this event being cited as an example) would be encyclopedic, but this article is not it. In addition, I don't believe that every single news event is encyclopedic- most news events are transient, and only of importance and relevance for a short period of time. An encyclopedia should cover subjects that have long term significance. Sortan 03:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, totally pointless entry, should I report every powercut & water pressure drop about my small town ? [Beta] 06:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know... did your water pressure drop become the top headline of rolling news channels around the world? Pcb21| Pete 08:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable event that could have gone worse. In terms of effect, it still has more practical impact than say the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson --Vsion 07:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, same to other major blackouts. &mdash; Instantnood 08:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge into California electricity crisis. Ambiguous name to boot. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 10:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep notable event affecting millions of people, which received international attention and will be remembered in Los Angeles for many years.--Pharos 15:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge into California electricity crisis or California energy management. Stations such as KABC 7 reported on this live, for what I believe is over 2 hours, possible 3? and this is not like a power interuption where a neighborhood had the power go out for a second and then all the street lights blinked red, this was over half of the City of Los Angeles, and caused street lights across the city to go completely black for hours, causing street backups worse then a bad rush hour, and this was at 1 pm, which should be light traffic in most parts. and this also affected freeways somewhat by having freeway exits backed up. Yes it is not as big as the 2003 North America blackout, but it is bigger then any average blackout. If 2/3 of New York City had the power go out for hours, would you delete the article on that? I think not.--  AlexTheMartian | Talk 21:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If the power in New York went out, I'd sure try and get the article deleted. I just think that a power outage has certain obstacles to overcome before it crosses from "newsworthy" to "encyclopaedic" and this one did not. Lord Bob 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt that. CFIF 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You doubt I'd vote delete on a similar New York blackout? May I ask why? Lord Bob 22:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I already voted, but someone seemed to want my transwiki comment to invalidate the vote, so I'm voting again with an even better reason why: This black out was given so much coverage because beforehand someone claimed that an attack on Los Angeles was in the works, it was on day after the anni of 9/11 AND It just goes to show how this country is wildly obsessed with fear and terror... it shows how the government and current issues combine into hysteria, paranoia, and a paralyzation of what would have been an easy to deal with and un-notable event... but this is a good illustration of the horrid decade we live in. -- NatsukiGirl \talk 22:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can this blackout reasonably be considered part of the California electricity crisis?  If so, then I would change my vote to merge.  I mean to ask, specifically, whether this is more connected to the general crisis than as just another blackout in California.--Pharos 23:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems likely to become socially significant. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh? How?  Nandesuka 11:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * should not be merged into California electricity crisis -- that event was a failed deregulation experiment which occurred in 2000-2001. This article is about a blackout in 2005. lots of issues  | leave me a message 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Firstly, the comments of some other people, with things like "there are articles with less notability than this that are not on VfD, so keep" are ridiculous. Maybe those artciles should be. Maybe you people should go and find them, and VfD nominate them. But the status of "other aticles" does not in any way influence what happens to this article. We have a clear Deletion policy, which is the sole determinant of whether or not to delete this article. The fact is that this article fails the "ten year test". In ten year's time, people will not remember, care about or even want to know about a 30 minute power outage in LA. As such, Wikipedia is not the place for stuff like LA Power Outage 2005. Thanks to whoever created this article for their enterprise and effort; unluckily this is not the place for it. And remember, if it becomes a big issue (eg someone famous died because their life support got turned off or whatever), we can always recreate the article. Batmanand 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per LordBob and, especially, Batmanand. Nandesuka 11:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it was a quick reference in another article it could be suitable, but it’s not encyclopaedic as a standalone article. If someone wants to add the event to Wikinews I encourage them to do so. Defsac 12:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough to me. *drew 01:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A news event that is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 02:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. basically a non-event. Power outages shouldn't rate a Wikipedia article unless 1) They last for at least a day for most areas and 2) cover a very large area (usually affecting more than one power provider). Although this outage affected a large part of the City of Los Angeles, it didn't spill over to any place not served by the LA Dept. of Water and Power, and most areas had the power back within a few hours. Blank Verse   &empty;  03:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Lving in Scotland, where power cuts are non-existent, it should be noted that even although there will be numerous power cuts in days to come for the city of LA; this should be noted. Possibly take it to another page like: Spectember 12 2005 Los Angeles power outage
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.