Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilbuck Township Walmart Landslide


 * 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, although if reliable sources can be found that demonstrate "the circumstances being evaluated in legal, land use, and commercial development circles" such that this becomes a notable incident, this deletion doesn't prejudice against a recreation with those sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kilbuck Township Walmart Landslide


WP:NOT soapbox. Local accident with wider notability not established, anti-Walmart POV pushing, recentism. --user:Qviri 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiAmericanLocalNews. Geez, maybe we should have articles on every time the river rises in Winnipeg. -- Charlene 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean like this time? Or this time? :) Caknuck 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the other 34 times it's risen since 1997. -- Charlene 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I wouldn't even vote keep if this was kilbucktownshipwiki.org. --Aaron 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions.   This is in effort to bring in more local views, although the list itself seems just about dead. --user:Qviri 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This parallels an incident in England where a supermarker development successfully blocked a main rail rine, when the cut+cover tunnel collapsed. A structural engineer might be abel to say whether there's mileage in an article about supermarkets destroying local transport links, but I'd say this is a news-issue, not a famous landslide -- Simon Cursitor 08:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- it already is famous. I acknowledge the perspectives above, and that the entry may need revision.  However, with respect to those reviewers, a superficial glance will grossly underestimate the severity and importance of this event.  I live hundreds of miles/several states distant, but have noted the circumstances being evaluated in legal, land use, and commercial development circles both online and offline (not to mention among pro- and anti- Wal-Mart and community advocates).  The developer aggressively sought and received waivers of various local zoning requirements over many months.  As a direct result, some 500,000 cubic yards of stone and soil collapsed onto a major state thoroughfare, closing it for nearly two weeks -- along with high-volume tracks of Norfolk Southern.  Had the collapse occurred only a few months later -- say, during the development's grand opening, with dignitaries and possibly thousands of citizens on site -- its Wikipedia footprint might have rivaled that of the 9/11 events in New York.  As a legal, land use, and engineering point of reference, we can only hope the Kilbruck slide will have few equals in the coming century.  Attorneys, planning professionals, elected officials, and others in growing numbers will be searching for context.  That's how I arrived here today! Gstock 15:58, 20 November 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.