Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasoline shortages in the Southeastern United States (September 2008)


 * 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   delete. Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline shortages in the Southeastern United States (September 2008)

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

This is just a news story. There's nothing here that shouldn't already be at the Hurricane Ike and Gustav articles. NJGW (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As the nomination notes, this is just a news story.  Merge the unique, relevant content to the Hurricane Ike and Gustav articles.  —   AjaxSmack   02:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS ... nothing else needs to be said. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. More appropriate for Wikinews.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - even as news, not so notable. See Peak oil. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep All history started out as news items, and articles should not be deleted just because they are crappy. The question should be what effect did this regional shortage have on national -- or local -- history & society. And none of the delete votes above address that concern. (And there may be none; but because we are not only voting on the article but its subject, a unanimous delete here may prevent Wikipedia from keeping an article written by a future editor from writing an article that makes it clear this topic is notable.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Are you actually voting keep or just saying you would like future editors to have a chance to write an article in the case that the event one day does become notable enough for it's own article? If it's the latter, then wp:N seems to have that hypothetical situation under control.  NJGW (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable event with sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG - which no one seems to have disputed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the coverage is anything more than trivial. That's the point of wp:NOTNEWS.  Ever since the event, it has not been covered.  The reason NOTNEWS exists is that raw information with out context is confusing and unhelpful.  That's why useful information is integrated into truly notable articles.  The real question is "what is in this article that isn't in the two hurricane articles AND necessitates a separate article?"  Answer: nothing.  NJGW (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what the coverage of this event has been since it ended. Searching Google news for "fuel-shortage Atlanta" (inserting 'Atlanta' because it was at the center of the shortage, and because leaving it out get's 1000's of hits on other fuel shortages around the world), I found only 3 references in passing after October 2008.  Two of those stories are about price gouging during the crisis.  No lasting notability.  NJGW (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with this others. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, it was reported, as most daily events are. The fact that it came and went with no lasting effect looks like evidence of the lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that no articles link there only underlines how transient this event was. Matt Deres (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (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.