Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Passover margarine shortage (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A shortage isn't really a single event, it is a series of events. The article now has multiple references from nationally distributed reliable sources such as Marketplace and the Wall Street Journal. There may be a case for merging or renaming this, that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

2008 Passover margarine shortage
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

See Wikipedia Deletion Policy: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, like news reports. EDIT: Fails WP:EVENT, event has little to no significance or lasting effects after it occured or depth of coverage as it occured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpop12 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2010 19:43 (UTC)
 * Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: not routine news coverage, passes WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Is not just routine coverage. Describes how unusual this case is, the reasons why it was an issue, and the impact it had on society, which all meet various guidelines under WP:EVENT. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absolutely ironclad WP:NOTNEWS. Ignore the inane "keep, it's interesting!" dribble. Tarc (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an extraordinary event -- and one of the biggest of 2008.  The fact that this article has been around for over two years speaks tomes about its significance.  Sapporod1965 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Such ridiculous hyperbole ("one of the biggest of 2008") is unlikely to convince anyone of the notability of this event. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Agreed with Tarc, 'absolutely ironclad WP:NOTNEWS'. I fail to see how a margarine shortage, despite what the author's and Sapporod's keep vote above says, is a notable historical event, especially as the worst case outcome was bland food. Simpop12 (Simpop12) 06:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A perfect example of "one event" or "not news". There was a shortage, which received exactly ONE report in a major reliable source: the Wall Street Journal. (Another of the sources cited is actually a reprint of the WSJ article from another paper.) No indication that this shortage had any lasting significance - or even widespread significance at the time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, definitely not news. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment NOTNEWS is the only argument given so far favoring deletion. NOTNEWS refer to routine coverage of news events, such as sporting event, a robbery at the local convenience store, or the mayor's appearance at the town square. This event was quite extraordinary. It was covered not only in the Wall Street Journal, but in the community papers of every city with a Jewish community. Yes, it affected only one ethnic group for the most part, but it was still widespread and reported throughout the country. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you may be misrepresenting WP:NOTNEWS slightly. A more complete quote is "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It appears to me that routine coverage is just one example. Also, NOTNEWS refers to Notability_(events), which stresses lasting impacts, duration, diversity and depth of coverage in regard to events. As for the article itself, currently two of the references are dead links, and all but one of the others are the WSJ article reprinted or use WSJ as their source. So there's the Cleveland Jewish News article and the WSJ article as the article stands right now. There are some additional sources here, but the coverage is pretty limited. So, I would suggest that this event has no lasting impact, and duration, diversity and depth of coverage is very limited. I'd also suggest that the event is, in fact, routine, as food shortages of various types happen regularly, see, for example,, , , . -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The mere suggestion that something happens regularly doesn't make it less notable. Earthquakes happen regularly; yet we cover many of them, and rightly so. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, of course, Other stuff exists. Xyz7890 was claiming that NOTNEWS only applies to routine events, and I was just pointing out that this event could be considered routine in the same way that a robbery or sporting event. Yes, we do cover many earthquakes, especially those that have significant coverage or have a lasting impact. If you are interested in an earthquake with similar coverage and similar impact to this event, I would suggest that this might suffice for a comparison. Coverage of this subject seems to have lasted for about one month, and the number of sources covering is quite limited, so I don't think it meets the bar for  WP:Notability_(events). That being said, it might well be that having an article on shortages that have affected passover services world wide would work, I think there are sufficient sources in the list I presented above to make such an article feasible, and personally I think it would make a better article than one limited to a single shortage in the US in 2008. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that a general article would be a better idea. However this is no reason for deletion, since it can be solved with a bit of bold editing, see WP:ATD. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please, by all means, be bold! -- Nuujinn (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is evidently notable. Consideration should be given to generalising the topic under a more general heading such as Kosher margarine using sources such as Is it kosher: encyclopedia of kosher foods.  Such improvement is mandated by our editing policy while deletion is clearly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not much indication that this was an event of lasting significance taken on its own terms.  But it is interesting, and I think there is considerable merit to the idea, raised in Nuujinn's and Colonel Warden's comments, of incorporating the material into a broader, more evidently notable topic.  I note that this event is already mentioned at Margarine and perhaps there is room for more of this content there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to qualify as notible and per arguments made by Colonel Warden. I don't see how this is "news", as it is more of a problem faced by Kosher foods and those who adhere to Kosher guidelines. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that not all news maketh a wikipedia article, but this is a historic shortage that was well-reported on and is likely to be researched in the future by users of the encyclopedia, just like events such as the 1981 Ketchup as a vegetable brouhaha.  I am not opposed to a merger elsewhere if there was a suitable place, such as Historic Margarine Shortages (a quick google news search suggests to me that there were other notable shortages in the 1940s and 1970s, though not kosher-only).--Milowent (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Fails WP:EVENT. Notability has several characteristics, mainly depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and lasting effects. This article seems to be a good example of WP:NTEMP. I found a single article from the WSJ doing a google search for "2008 Margarine shortage," and a few sources that copied that source verbatim, along with a blogs on the topic from 2008. I don't think this is notable now, and it especially won't be in several years more. I think it might be a decent idea to merge this into another, more broad article, as Nuujinn suggested. If not, then I'd go for delete.20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.208.236 (talk)


 * Strong Delete. As to policy I'd point to NOTNEWS and a fail of EVENT ("stories lacking lasting value").  As common sense I feel that there is no merit and nothing encyclopedic about this article.  If this information needs to be kept in some form it should be a sub-section in the article about kosher margerine or an article about margerine.  Joe407 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment since there is still uncertainty about the fate of this article (I voted Delete above): if the article is kept, some thought should be given to the title. "2008 Passover margarine shortage" is a most unlikely search term, unlikely to be found even by someone (anyone? anyone?) who is searching for information about this pseudo-event or related issues. Their search string is unlikely to begin with "2008 Passover..." If the article is kept, I suggest that "Margarine shortage, Passover 2008" would be a better title - since it would pop up as a possibility if someone searches for "margarine shortage". Or "Passover margarine shortage, 2008" for the same reason. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per MelanieN. notnews, oneevent, non-lasting, nothing special. So what? let me add 'otherstuff' as well 2010 United States tomato shortage. --Shuki (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you were joking. You weren't. Looks like that one ought to go as well. How many of these are there??? --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * More than you can imagine, probably. But I doubt they do any harm even if they should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm except maybe making Wikipedia look silly. I actually did search, just now, for "2010 shortage..." and "2009 shortage..." The only thing that turned up besides these two was a shortage of small-arms ammunition, which is not silly like these two. There are also references WITHIN THE MAIN ARTICLE to temporary shortages of things like Angostura bitters; that seems like the right place for such information.  --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is "silly" for you is comprehensive for me. When will we stop to care about how we look and instead focus on what we are, a comprehensive resource of verifiable, sourced knowledge, no matter if obscure? -- Cycl o pia talk  14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with you Melanie, thanks. As the nominator, I accidentally came across this article initially when I was trying to search for the dates of the 2008 Pesach using Wiki instead of Yahoo. Of the thousands of articles I've read on Wiki, I was surprised how trivial the article came off as being, and I keep the passover. I looked through the AfD guidelines and thought this would be a slam-dunk, am quite surprised at the controversy this created. So anyway, I understand what you're saying Cyclopia, but what you seem to be moving for here is actually a policy change in Wikipedia. As this article stands now, I strongly, strongly believe there isn't a policy that justifies its maintence per current Wikipedia guidelines. I know you originally suggested this is notable per WP:GNG, but of the 5 criteria I'm not sure which, of any, this article qualifies for, and that's just the general guideline...that's not a guarantee of notability worthy of inclusion even if it had satisfied all 5 points. Also, I don't think anyone's attempted to explain how this is relevant per WP:EVENT, which in retrospect is a much better reason for deletetion than WP:NOTNEWS, though I stand by that one as well. Simpop12 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not your run-of-the-mill news event. As events go, it is far from routine, and the article is not written in the style of a news report, but more like an encyclopedia article. Dew Kane (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Run of the mill is only one of many, many criteria. Someone mentioned, and I now agree, that as written above WP:EVENT requires notability, duration, and lasting effects. Even among the Jewish community what were the lasting effects? Did it have reprecussions past Passover? Did it change people's way of life? Even if it was notable as it was occuring, which I don't believe, is there anything to suggest it was anything more than temporary per WP:SBST? There's nothing to suggest it was even a huge deal AS it was occuring. I do apologize though for the original complaint as being only WP:NOTNEWS, I definitely could have done a better job since I believe this fails several criteria. One individual compared this to the ketchup as a vegetable issue during the Reagan administration, and thereby made this Notable, but the Ketchup as a Vegetable event made many of newspapers, led to public discussions from congressional democrats who were opposed and trying to score political points, was well was published in several sources including being the cover story of Newsweek, and served as a major embarrassment for Reagan. Even that said, I'm still not sure the ketchup thing would qualify. I checked the person's above claim that the WSJ article is the only article, and it appears to be true. It appeared just once as it was actually occuring. I'm not sure what lasting effects this has had. Duration of coverage even was 'once', once during the peak of the event itself. Simpop12 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. NOTNEWS is limited to typical daily events, which this isn't. -- Pink Bull  17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I do not believe that is a correct reading of NOTNEWS, see my comments above. -- Nuujinn (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2010 (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.