Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustav Incidents


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav Incidents

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

To start out, the article is poorly named, and if the article were to stay it should be renamed to Effects of Hurricane Gustav or the like. Aside from that, the article is unsourced, incomplete, most of the information is original research and irrelevant to the topic, and finally, all relevant information is well-covered in the Hurricane Gustav article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is just an incomplete and un-sourced clone of the headings of the Impact section of Hurricane Gustav. The only heading that the author bothered to fill in was a POV rant about "Southern Scrap Recycling".  Plasticup  T / C  20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete totally unnecessary page; the effects of Gustav are already covered in the Gustav page. RockManQ (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The page is not needed. Merging with Hurricane Gustav would be pointless, since all of the information is already covered in the article.  iMa tth ew (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename, but I moved a whole bunch of controversial material from the USCGC courier page to the talk page as two posters really messed up the page. As far as incidences are concerned the page may qualify. If the unneccesary section heads and state the conflicts of information are properly structure. Maybe rename the page to "New Orleans Industrial Canal-Gustav-Scrap Ship incident". I bet there are news worthy sources that support the page. Regarding Gustav, the incident appears to revolve around improperly moored ships during the storm, not the storm itself, as there may be judicial or other action taken against the owners of the vessels.
 * Poorly named - Agree
 * Poorly sourced - The article is based on newsworthy material, the sources chosen however are poor, not grounds for deletion. In the courier page I moved the sources to talk page and threw out one source altogether. The average new article on WP has no sources, poor or otherwise.
 * Covered under Gustav - This assumes no further political development will occur. Who is going to pay for damages to the pump housing and natural gas pipelines. Right now the company claims that the ship was a specific cruiser of the USCGC vintige, they claim that this is not true. There could be legal reprocussions to the claims, as a result this page is notable enough.PB666 yap 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete per nom Jer10 95 Talk 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: this is already covered at Hurricane Gustav. Cliff smith  talk  23:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Anymediaguy (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Loosened Vessels in New Orlean's Industrial Canal during Gustav
To establish the notability of the topic, but considering that this main, at minimum will be renamed.

"Brewer said that before the storm, the Coast Guard sent out several notices to mariners, instructing them on the proper way to moor ships during a storm. These precautions included taking steps to double mooring lines, as well as rigging an anchor close to the vessel, he said. An investigation will be launched into how the vessels got loose during a storm, but Brewer said he couldn't comment about any potential penalties. A dry dock owned by Southern Scrap sank in the canal during Hurricane Katrina, prompting a lawsuit against the company by the Army Corps to recoup the $8 million the government spent to remove the wreckage. That structure tore loose from its moorings during the storm, drifting across the canal before sinking near the Florida Avenue bridge." "'You've got a lot of scour here associated with water flow,' he said. 'Another 30 yards and it could have been eroding right here at the federal floodwall. 'We know there are concerns here,' Cephus said as emergency crews, towboats, the Coast Guard, city officials and the scrap yard owners tried to untangle the mess of ships, repair the damage and assess blame. Chris Bonura, a Port of New Orleans spokesman, said work to shore up port-provided flood protection at the Almonaster bridge has not moved along very quickly. On the canal, the port has its own floodwalls, but they are much smaller and meant to protect harbor business." Nagin: Surprise is a mild way to put it. I am absolutely incensed about that. It wasn’t just barges. There were two 400-feet Navy ships that were scheduled to be scrapped in the doggone Canal. They were floating around up until 9 o’clock last night. They finally secured them. We must get the Coast Guard and the levee board and everybody to clear those canals when a storm is threatening us.

Do not delete a page simply because the creator is a quacking duck, that is not satisfactory grounds, in and of itself for deletion. Error's in this regard have occurred in the past. The question is whether the topic is notable or not.PB666 yap 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good but it belongs in the article on Hurricane Gustav. If its section there becomes exceptionally large then it could be split into an separate article, but right now I don't see why it should be broken out on its own.  Plasticup  T / C  13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is a POV fork and consists of a) stuff that should be in the main article and b) one man's grievances against a company.  naerii  21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * - A lone voice here. The Gustav page is currently 77,000 in length. According to WP:Split it is acceptable, indeed desired to create splits. "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" WP:SPLIT so that we can stop using the FORK issue and look at the notability issue, already 4 news articles devoted to assessning blame for the situation in the industrial canal, it is therefore notable. Is there a notable, stand on its own topic here, clearly yes. The controversy is this: what did the US Coast guard tell dock owners to do prior to Hurricane Fay and what did dock owners do. There were dozens of ships, barges loosed during the tropical storm despite the coast gaurd recommendations. One of those ships, the Courier ended up on top of a regional natural gas pipeline that could have (or may still cause) catastrophic damage in NO or shut of supplies to the Eastern US raising energy prices. This is not about hurricane Gustav, its about a preparative issue and policy guidelines. I have updated the section on Louisiana in Gustav and provided references. This topic clearly deserves a page, the question here concerns the NPOV of the creator of this poorly named and referenced page.PB666 yap 04:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "split" premise does not apply here, as WP:SPLIT says that an article is recommended to be divided when there are 60+ KB of readable prose, a term with a clearly-defined meaning. Gustav only has 30 KB of readable prose, still clearly between the safe margin. And the so-called "controversy" is inflating an event that while regretable, is not actually encyclopedic. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, let's separate the message from the messager, BlueNorway obviously did not carry NPOV and the information was chocked with errors, I should know I followed his work on 4 different pages correcting the errors. But there is a single underlying theme I think is encyclopedic. It involves a chain of events that begins with hurrican Katrina and may well reassert itself with hurricane Ike. The primary issue here is the mishandling of unpowered vessels during a storm. I have associates who owns ocean going vessels and the common practice is to run the vessels in a protected inlets during storms like this with the help of tackle, etc. A point here is why did the fed deliver two ships to SSMC two weeks before the peak hurricane season but at the same time restrict the ability for the ships to be moved? The key word used in the media is the 'Situation' in the Industrial Canal and by now this is well referenced. By Wiki standards it is encyclopedic enough, there are a million or so pages in wikipedia that do not even come close to that standard so don't give me this BS. The current named page is not in an appropriate format and needs to be renamed. This is a superficial issue.PB666 yap 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have completely rewritten the page. I have placed a option rename on the talk page, and suggested a rename. I have also backed up the page to my talk page. Please make an effort to be objective about the topic.PB666 yap 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, this isn't ING 4727, there is nothing notable about these ships. Also, as this is a POV fork, groups together hand-picked material and mixes events relating to Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Katrina, I'm not even sure if it can be ever suited for an article. Maybe something for a blog, but not for here. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has served a purpose of sorts as a repository for facts that might be incorporated into the overall article about Hurricane Gustav. And for that purpose, "Gustav incidents" was good name for a bulletin board.  But eventually, bulletin boards are cleared and the important postings are synthesized into a more concise form.  I understand Courier's concerns that the Gustav page is lengthy at the moment (77 kb).  However, as with all things on Wikipedia, that article will be edited by subsequent users, separating the history from the news.  Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 7 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.