Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Kerry bogslide


 * 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. BJ Talk 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Kerry bogslide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is clearly a silly article that does not meet any guidelines for a notable event. A natural disaster that destroys no property and kills no people is not notable, even if it does displace a moderately large volume of bog. Dzhastin 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   --Eastmain ( talk · contribs  · deleted contribs  · [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] · block user  · [  block log  ] )
 * comment "...that destroys no property..." But there was damage to property--a road and two bridges were swept away. Freederick (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was significant damage to the road and to the two bridges, although the article does not include an estimate for the cost of repairs. The fish kill was significant. And the incident is made more notable by the possibility that it was caused or made worse by the machinery at a wind farm site, which may have implications for wind farms being built elsewhere. The article has 14 references, 12 from a local newspaper and one each from two national media, RTÉ and The Irish Times. --Eastmain (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep I am not sure what to say about this. It is impeccably referenced, has had quite a lot of news coverage, and there is even follow-up coverage over the last couple of days, . My first thought was that this shows the futility of including local papers as reliable sources, but a lot of the coverage (for example those two links, and the Irish Times one on the article) is from major national media outlets. I can't see any valid arguments for deleting it, as silly as it might sound. Brilliantine (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) - Although, on second glance, an argument could be made for cutting down on some of the irrelevancies. The article is too long and detailed for an incident of this nature. Brilliantine (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Damage to a road and 2 bridges in a rural area does not a natural disaster make. The number of references is irrelevant. Please see wp:EVENT. "A news event reported by the media only within the immediate region is generally not notable, and does not justify an article, regardless of the number of reliable sources that can be provided." Dzhastin 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzhastin (talk • contribs)
 * Sadly, the whole country is a bit bigger than "the immediate region". I think this just, but only just, fulfils "heavily reported damage", one of the criteria for nationally reported events (which this is). Brilliantine (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete While well referenced, it is really not a natural disaster, nor is it a notable event per se. ww2censor (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it wasn't natural, or wasn't a disaster? And what difference would it make to notability in either case?  Richard Pinch (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Well referenced; well written; interesting ecological angle. Granted, there were no human victims, so the notability is borderline; but with national level of coverage, it is sufficient.  It needs to be trimmed a bit though; especially the individual sob stories ought to be cut, or reduced to a one-sentence mention. Freederick (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "well referenced" and "well written" points are true, but that just means it's worthy of moving to Wikinews. There are hundreds of worldwide road closures caused by landslides (with environmental impacts/etc) every single day of the year. Doesn't make them encyclopaedic in scope. Newsworthy: yes. Encyclopaedic: No. Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak delete per nom, Dzhastin and WP:EVENT. Even if this occurrence could be tagged a as "disaster", the notability criteria for disaster is that they "significantly affect the region which they strike, resulting in heavily-reported death or damage. Not every earthquake, storm, or meteorite landing that destroys just a few houses can be worthy of an article." In this case, there were no deaths (except a bunch of fish). No injuries. No property damage (just a road closure). Etc. In short, it's not encyclopaedically valuable. Someone put a lot of work into it though, so move to Wikinews. Guliolopez (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Damage was estimated at 500000 Euros, according to one of the national press articles. Sounds like property damage to me. Brilliantine (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the estimate to fix the road/bridge. In my note above, I used "property" to mean houses/buildings/"properties". That is to say that, other than having to drive the long way around, there was no major impact to citizens. Certainly when one cmopares the actual material damage, injury and loss of life to (say) the flooding all over Europe recently.Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed it from the tone of my earlier comments. Policies contradict each other, and one can include almost anything if one tries hard enough. It's a problem. Brilliantine (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, DzHastin, and WP:EVENT although I'd have no problem if it was cleaned up. Locally notable, but otherwise ...?  Don&#39;tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. How can it be that Beefart is the only one on the planet who can see that the author of this article is mocking you? The whole thing is a send-up from start to finish. Look at the background of the person who created the article. He is far too smart to have written this crap except as a joke. Why does somebody with the power to do so not ask him for his views? What he is saying, in a nutshell, is this: "Let me show you what is wrong with Wikipedia"...Captainbeefart (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Actually guys, I'm not so sure of that. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by a simple lack of awareness. I've had some "overlap" with the user who created this article over the years, and I'd be surprised if this was a joke. It's actually perfectly in line with his/her style of editting - focusing as he/she does on creating or editting articles on "current events", pop-culture topics that happen to be hot at any given time, and generally stuff he/she sees on TV. So, to put it simply, I don't think the article creator is pulling the piss. Rather I've never been really sure that they actually fully understood the project. (In terms of WP:WWPIN and WP:RECENTISM) Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, apologies, it is quite an odd article though. Brilliantine (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. I totally agree with that. But have a look at the users history and you'll see what I mean. By way of example, you will note that the same user also created 2008 Irish flash floods. Equally better suited to "the news" (structured as it is as a day-by-day update with limited longterm "encyclopedic" context). And similarly dodgy in terms of classification as a "natural disaster" - certainly when compared to other events that are categorised as such. Both "articles" are a little (how to put this) "shortsighted". Given that flooding has been occuring for thousands/millions of years along every river in the world. And will for years to come (if the LHC doesn't collapse space and time in upon itself next month). Anyway, it just goes to my point that just because something was on the news doesn't make it worth an article all on its own- synthesizing content from multiple news sources. With no lonterm/encyclopedic context. That is actually kinda what Wikinews is for. Not for here. I think I'll actually let the user know about Wikinews. Again. Coz maybe he/she just doesn't appreciate the difference. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep, this was not created as a joke. In fact I failed to realise that such a situation would arise. It only seems to have happened though after it was put up for DYK which surely shouldn't be the case. I created it after witnessing it broadcast on a national news bulletin. The news bulletin itself seemed more concerned about the ecological aspect of the disaster rather than the lack of loss of life. It seems irrational to ignore an ecological disaster if enough people haven't be killed to make it notable. And by coincidence just as I created it it was back in the news again. So it was fairly continual.

This is on the talk page but I'll leave it here again.

OK. First of all. A quote. "Up to 30,000 people in north Kerry were left without a water supply due to polluted water courses and threatened reservoirs." 

That line is referenced by an article from The Irish Times, a national newspaper with no special relationship with County Kerry. 30,000 people is a lot of people, certainly by Irish standards. So a highly regarded national newspaper has reported that 30,000 people have been affected by this occurence. Another reference in the article is from national broadcaster RTÉ, whose news bulletin was how I first came to hear of this.

This article may not be up to everyone's taste but that seems to be because most of the inclination to use local sources which I thought would be a good place to start. There are many national sources available which I have not had time to complete but I thought the inclusion of at least one source from a national newspaper and a national broadcaster would at least appease those who are opposed such "local" events whilst serving to remind that there are easily other references available.

"A news event is notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope." Well it certainly received significant, continual coverage in sources with national scope.

Of course the article needs tidying up but I have never claimed that it was perfect. If I used any lines that appeared exaggerated or extreme they were marked with a reference number directly afterwards. After all, it is not a matter of my opinion, I was just referring to what was said in the aftermath of the event.

The idea that the bogslide (a word I have not made up - it is used in the references and is taught in geography classes in schools across the country) closed one road and therefore is not notable is wrong as, if the article were read again, it would become quite clear that much more damage than the closure of one road was caused. --Candlewicke (Talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The article states that "The original bogslide extended to over four kilometres on August 22 and August 23, destroying an estimated 10 hectares (25 acres) of bog, engulfing two bridges and led to the closure of a section of road, resulting in motorists having to undertake a 16 km (10 mi) diversion. It was reported that it could take anything up to six months to fix the road." A 10 mile diversion in a road is not notable, 25 acres of displaced bog is not notable, and 30,000 people having to buy bottled water isn't notable. Just because the Irish Times reported it doesn't mean that it's notable. The Philadelphia Inquirer (the Philly metro area is approximately the same population as Ireland) prints dozens of stories that I read every day, but not every one deserves a Wikipedia article wp:not. There's also no evidence of continual coverage on a national scope, just a single blurb. This could be Wikinews and is actually an amusing, well-written article, all the hyperbole notwithstanding. It is not encyclopedic though. dzhastin (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2 - Well that may be true but if that's the case can very many articles be created that refer to Ireland or say to other small countries? The Irish Times and other such newspapers are the highest placed newspapers in the country, you can go no higher from an Irish point of view on news delivery than being national. It seems perfectly irrational to compare a newspaper in a large country with the same population as a small country to a national newspaper of a small country reporting on an event which is considerably large enough by that country's standards. Of course not everything in appear such as The Philadelphia Enquirer would make it onto Wikipedia. Neither would everything from The Irish Times. But the use of sources is only part of the argument and does not take into account the event itself. From the point of view of a large country like the US of course these measurements are probably non-notable. But by Irish standards events like this don't happen every day. 30,000 people is a considerable chunk of the population. What I have to ask is whether events in smaller countries are taken into context by those who are situated and have lived most of their lives in larger countries? And if they aren't what are we left with? An encyclopedia that is dominated with stories of events that occur in large countries with large populations because there are more people to be affected and therefore the event is on a larger scale and whereby anything that is relevant to smaller countries is systematically removed due to only a tiny handful of people being affected? What are the encyclopedic quotas for "bottled water"? Would 300,000 suffice? That would be nigh on 1/10 of the Irish population... yet if 300,000 Irish people had no water supply (a fairly significant occurrence on a national level I would imagine compared to, say, in the US or China or even compared to the UK) that argument could still be used against it. Which seems a little overprotective. --Candlewicke (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are only three reasons to delete an article like this: 1) The article violates WP:Verify, 2) The article violates WP:NPOV and 3) The article violates WP:NOR. None of these apply to this article.  Absent some new guideline that defines criteria for Notable Natural Disasters, this one should stay.  All the other reasons for deletion are just POV.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My last comment. Actually there is a notability criteria for natural disasters. And this fails it. See: EVENT. The simple fact is that the media totally over-blew and sensationalised this event. Giving as they did absolutely no global context for it. The quotes and sensationalist hyperbole in the Kerryman newspaper for example ""one of the most frightening and overwhelming events ever witnessed" and "It’s frightening. We dread to think that we’ll never see home in the future" are ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE when you consider that the only material impacts were that people had to drive the long way around to the shops, boil their water, and spend a few months repaving a road. We on the other hand are not a local newspaper, and should be giving a global and objective perspective. When for example you put the above quotes in the global/objective context of the 1999 Vargas mudslides - which killed TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOP -E, the sensationalism stands out as trite and embarrassing. We shouldn't inherit this sensationalism in a Wikipedia article. That's my opinion at least. Anyway, I'm going to shut-up now coz it sounds like I'm ranting against the article. I'm not. The writing/sourcing/construction is good. It's just that its inappropriately inheriting notability imposed by a sensationalist press. That we shouldn't inherit. Move to Wikinews instead. Guliolopez (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral sensationalism. The "sensationalist hyperbole" is used or is intended to be used alongside terms such as "was described by" and "was reported". Which is exactly what happened. It could not be compared to large scale disasters but the comparisons with large scale disasters are drawn from events that are completely different. A bogslide is neither an earthquake nor a tsunami nor a volcanic eruption and cannot be compared to incidents such as those. To say that thousands of these things happen - well evidently not that many, as at least one editor on the talk page has not even heard of an event like it ever taking place before. They certainly don't occur as often as hurricances yet each tropical storm receives an article upon its announcement before it even has the chance to cause any damage without any protest. No one here is claiming that the event is absolutely earth-shattering. The phrases that are viewed as problematic are quotes from elsewhere (and are constructed carefully in a way that is not intended to be misleading or to obstruct neutrality) with appropriate sources beside them. Naturally the local media would report most heavily on such an incident and extreme statements may be put across. But there is also evidence of this incident affecting people on a national level. --Candlewicke (Talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Possibly irrelevant but interesting that the nominating editor has a total of 30 edits to their name, most of which have been on this article. Has inexperience provoked a rushed nomination? Praiseworthy all the same. End of. --140.203.12.243 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Based on some of the rationale given to date both for deleting and for keeping, I've done some cleanup of the actual article in an attempt to see if our reasons remain the same after cleanup. The tone of the article has changed which might affect how we view it. Take a look. Don&#39;tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well. That is now IMMEASURABLY better. With all the hyperbole, sensationalist quotes and other wikisource/wikinews stuff removed, it certainly appears to be a lot more encyclopaedic in aspect. I still think it fails WP:EVENT though and is more a news item than a standalone Encyclopaedia article/reference source that has independent merit. I struggle therefore with changing my vote to a keep. I've "downgraded" my delete vote accordingly though. Very good work though. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try and re-copy edit it when I have time. It's a shame, cause the prose was wonderful but not so encyclopaedic before - now the article is more encyclopaedic but the prose may be in need of some work. Brilliantine (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has a large number of independant, reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Arguments like "it didn't kill anyone" or "it didn't destroy enough property" are preposterous. Notability is assessed by looking at the attention received by a subject and the importance attributed to it, which can be easily evaluated in this case by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It definitely reads a lot better. See what can be produced through collaboration rather than one editor being responsible for updating an article? It's a shame about the hyperbole but I definitely agree on it being more encyclopedic in its current existence. It reads like I would have liked to have written it had I not been in quite a rush and had it not been nominated for deletion before I got back to it. I could perhaps move the hyperbole to elsewhere and tag it as Humor if that wouldn't cause too much offense. --Candlewicke (Talk) 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Humor - Support Yes! Actually, the article in it's original form would be perfect for humor. It was a very well crafted article with good references, formatting and prose and was very amusing to me. I just didn't think it was encyclopedic. dzhastin (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm hazarding a guess that there is no hope for this article? I would hope that I'm wrong but if I'm right could not bogslide be created and a subsection added to contain the more important info? It seems a bit of a waste. --Candlewicke (Talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments so far, there's certainly no consensus to delete. Everyking (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support suggested merge into a bogslide article (or alternatively, into a new Lyrecompane article). To me, lots of sources isn't necessarily evidence of sufficient notability for an individual article.  I submit that there probably were plenty of equivalent bogslides in Ireland over the past 400 years that just got less coverage.  --Rye1967 (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently important natural disaster. The usual excuse for deletion (BLP) doesn't apply in this case, so we will have to go by sourced notability. DGG (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability seems to be met. JASpencer (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (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.