Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Queens blackout


 * 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Queens blackout
Poorly written article without much notability, as indicated by the tags. It did happen, passes WP:V, but not a very well needed article here. --Nicholas Weiner 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a notable event, receiving world-wide news coverage over a span of days. Wikipedia has articles on power blackouts in general, and articles on a number of blackouts: see Category:Blackouts, see List of power outages. Examples are: Northeast Blackout of 1965, New York City blackout of 1977 , 1998 Auckland power crisis , 2003 Italy blackout , Northeast Blackout of 2003 . There was significant property damage and lives were in danger. Editing rather than deletion is the proper response to a perception that an article is badly written. This article could be edited to more resemble Northeast Blackout of 1965 I would like the see the references so formatted that the newspaper stories or other citations are listed in Notes at the bottom, not just numbers imbedded in the text. The article is indeed "well needed." Deleting it would only serve the interests of Consolidated Edison and the city administration by concealing any mistakes or possible poor management. Edison 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did some of the editing I described above. Still needs to be brought up to date.Edison 18:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah fixing it up is definitely necessary. As with some fuckin' revisions - wouldn't that be the shit?  And anyways I might be using this AfD discussion as a wake-up call to fix up this article.  --Nicholas Weiner 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think a blackout farther from CNN and Fox and the Big Three TV networks and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but affecting about the same number of households, would have gotten nearly as much media coverage? It didn't affect the airports or Shea Stadium. I don't want to declare it notable solely due to an accident of geography.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I don't think it affected enough people or a large enough area to be notable, but I'm uncomfortale with non-notability per se as a reason to delete an article that's not vanity or an ad and that people might well look up.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it affected hundreds of thousands of people for an extended period of time. There were dozens if not hundreds of news stories written about it.  We have notability guidelines to ensure we have enough verifiable information to write an article;  this is definitely so.   We include obscure topics in wikipedia because WP:NOT paper, and we don't need to cut things out for not being important--we only cut them because they can't meet our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * it affected hundreds of thousands of people for an extended period of time So do traffic jams on the LIE, but they don't get articles, either. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You show me a traffic jam that ties up a hundred thousand people for a week and I'll write an article about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Calton 's comment suggests that a traffic jam lasting a few hours equals a blackout lasting a week, with elderly people stuck on the 20th floor of buildings with no running water and no refirgeration for their insulin. People died of heart attacks. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!Edison 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information either. I'm not saying things should be cut for being unimportant, I'm saying things should be cut if no one is ever likely to look them up. It's true there's no reason not to have such articles, but there's no reason to have them either. In any case, since we agree that 2006 Queens blackout should be kept, perhaps we should take this particular debate to Wikipedia talk:Notability–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a news report archive, and doubly not a local news report archive. This incident is not as serious as other blackouts mentioned. Power blackouts affecting around this number of people are not that uncommon internationally. Bwithh 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes not that many were affected by this as opposed to other blackouts but this one lasted a lot longer too. --Nicholas Weiner 11:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Transitory news item of, at best, regional interest. That Wikipedia is not paper doesn't also mean that it's an informational garbage dump. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See also: Jordanhill Railway Station. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. What's next...List of electrical brown-outs in Bonner County, Idaho? or List of people who caught the cold? Non-notable, unencyclopedic. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Absurd reasons for deleting this article. "List of people who caught the cold??? Does that make international news until each gets over their cold? See List of power outages, New York City blackout of 1977, 1998 Esso Longford gas explosion, California electricity crisis, 2003 London blackout, 2003 southern Malaysia blackout, 2005 Java-Bali Blackout,& 2006 Auckland Blackout.Electricity is essential to life in a big city. Edison 04:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the nightly news still runs pieces about cold season and flu vaccines, and even though a Bonner County Idaho brown-out is a news item, it does not make any of the three (in addition to the subject of this AfD) notable or encyclopedic. Further, the common cold kills more people each year than blackouts...doesn't make it any more or less notable. In all actuality, the reasons aren't absurd, they're rather apt. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A brownout is a deliberate voltage reduction, typically 2.5% or 5%, done by a utility to reduce line loading and maintain service when the demand exceeds the supply of electricity. Our utility does that to us on about every hot day, but it is not much of a news item, and those without voltmeters are unlikely to notice it. A blackout is a prolonged failure to supply any electricity to a large area, resulting in people trapped in elevators, fire pumps not working, food and medicine spoiled, possible looting due to lack of night-time lighting in urban areas. When it occurs in a large city, it make worldwide news until restored. I do not see the logic of comparing a blackout to someone with the sniffles. There are dozens of articles on every known infectious disease. So what? This is a different topic.Edison 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - The blackout affected tens of thousands of people. Five years from now it might seem like nothing, and it can be nominated for deletion then.  But for now, keep it.
 * Keep; meh. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per meh. Multiple non-trivial blah blah blah... - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - This article lacks notability and is greately flawed. MAYBE if it was revised to reach standard I can see it being kept, but for now its not needed.  --THEBIGNICK  15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It has 17 citations, more than most articles and some featured articles.  It's certainly verifiable and sourced, and probably notable.  Any remaining problems can be attacked by a rewrite/cleanup.  Cool3 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 'keep please per crazy russian no reason to erase this really Yuckfoo 20:57, 25 September 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.