Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Mumbai "Sweet" Seawater Incident


 * 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 -- Samir  धर्म 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Mumbai "Sweet" Seawater Incident
Unencyclopedia article about an event which may or may not have occurred, and which as non notable news is outside the scope of wikipedia. Delete --Peta 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable news event. WP:NOT Wikinews or Your Local Paper (TM). -- Kinu t /c  05:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my recommendation to keep for cleanup and expansion now that it's been sourced with references from major media outlets (Hindustan Times, Times of India, BBC News, etc.), indicating that it isn't just a local interest story. Although the title could use some improvement so it isn't so wordy (that, and is it properly cased?). -- Kinu t /c  15:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom ST47 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Every item in history was at some time a news event and non-notable depending on geographical location. From a scientific standpoint, this article has merit. It's not a murder or celebrity marriage or any of the other dross that clogs up our news channels, this is an extremely unusual event, look in any decent encyclopaedia, you will find instances of events just like this one. Mallanox 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The incident DID take place. Every major newspaper and TV channel in India covered it. It was a first page news-item and first news item of most news channels. Also, this isn't a celebrity flick with no long term potential, and has notability because of scientific basis of the mass hysteria. The article isn't written well, but is still keep-worthy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - encyclopaedic, sourced - I'm not sure there's anything else. WilyD 13:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable. Covered not by the local paper but by national media. Given prominent coverage even by Indian government. -- Lost(talk) 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess - an example of an interesting natural phenomenon. Just zis Guy you know? 19:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per JzG, and interesting anyway. Needs a bit more cleanup and a peer review. --TheM62Manchester 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered by BBC. Leuko 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Create a new article create a new article explaining this scientific phenomenon. and then cite the mumbai incident as one of its examples. who knows this incident might occur in other countries as well. --Ageo020 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we can do that in case this sort of phenomena have been well documented and discussed before, and we have scientific sources; until we do, it's better to keep this thing as it is. When we do have an article on the general topic, we can always reconsider whether we need to merge it. Right now, however, keeping it might be the best choice... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per lost Bakaman Bakatalk 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - verifiable incident of mass hysteria. --Ragib 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Could be linked or merged to a superstition article TerryJ-Ho
 * Keep (Speedy keep if possible) - This event almost certainly did occur, I remember seeing reports on CNN International and even Polish TV news channel, so I guess it was pretty major news. See Boston molasses disaster for a pretty good article on a more-or-less comparable incident. Bravada, talk - 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure a speedy is not possible. WilyD 13:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. In that case we have to wait until the regular procedure ends, and I can't see how it could not end with a "keep" in view of all the arguments presented here. Still, too bad if we miss a good DYK because of that. Bravada, talk - 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True enough - in any event, I also agree the concensus seems to be keep. WilyD 14:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the great reasoning above. :)  Srose  (talk)  00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep What do you mean it may not have occurred? Its all over India. Its also on verifiable sources like Yahoo, BBC, CNN, etc. Definitely keep...Reppin the bay 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: fascinating story. Absolutely appropriate for this encyclopedia. --AStanhope 09:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep articles about current events are okay if they're of historic proportions and something encyclopaedic can be said about them; mysterious nature incidents are okay if we have sources and all that, too. And this one pretty much satisfies both. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --- Skapur 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.