Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water


 * 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   no consensus. The article has been rewritten and much expanded in recent days so the older opinions may no longer be (entirely) applicable. Can be renominated if somebody thinks the current version is still fundamentally problematic.  Sandstein  19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research on a news story that otherwise wouldn't be covered in an encyclopedia.  MBisanz  talk 02:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is not original - see Detection of Lead in the DC Drinking Water System for a substantial source devoted to this topic. Warden (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That "source" was one hearing report before Congress that consisted almost entirely of preprinted statements on lead contamination in general or other prepared remarks. How is that a substantial source on this topic when hundreds of such reports are prepared every year? How is this article different in scope than Lead contamination in X city drinking water or Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. public housing? At best it's a topic for Wikinews.  MBisanz  talk 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS at its worst - an article based on one story! Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Enough references. Meets WP:RS and WP:N. And it is not a news story, it is a phenomenon observed in the said region. --Reference Desker (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comment Delete. If it is kept it would need a complete rewrite since it seems to be used as a vehicle to talk about Marc Edward. There is also a lot of other stuff in it that unnecessarily pads out the article. It would be good to have a dig to see how much info on the topic there is out there. In the meantime the Water pollution in the United States article is crying out for some content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) for more about him and this topic. The material needs reorganising so that the DC water topic is covered here while the Marc Edwards article is more biographical.  This will be best done by ordinary editing, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with Alan Liefting that this page needs to major on the issue not on Edwards but I think that the rewrite does that. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm inclined to say that the coverage in the Washington Post and Environmental Science and Technology is enough to demonstrate notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The WaPo isn't independent here, it's about the Env. Sci. Tech article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the nominator is correct that this would not appear in a paper encyclopedia. However, the advantage of being ethereal is that we can cover a wider range of topics. I see no reason why we should not report important research provided we do so in a WP:NPOV manner. TerriersFan (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Although the general topics of water purity and lead poisoning are extremely important, vital in fact, this is just a report of one instance. The article Washington D.C. could have a section on the water system where this information could be given. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a merge, then? TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Content can be merged to Washington D.C..  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, and as an example of recentism. This is just a report on a contaminant found in the drinking water of one city. It is already covered in District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority.   Is it argued that any case in any city, in any year, where a couple of articles were published about water contamination, soil contamination, or air pollution, there should be an encyclopedia article? Every large or small city would be entitled to dozens of such articles. It makes more sense to have one article about the water system of a major city. Edison (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:GNG. Leonnig's coverage of this topic in the Post makes the issue notable along with the other articles mentioned at Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor). That Leonnig won an award for her coverage of the topic is even more endorsement. Toddst1 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The current article is terrible, but the topic is extremely notable.  Please compare the version of events I just rewrote over at Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor); that version focuses on Edwards' very substantial contribution to the issue, but there is more out there.  This incident is highly noteworthy: 15 parts per billion of lead is too much for safety.  Above that, and kids get brain damage.  Because the Army Corps of Engineers switched from chlorine to chloramine for water treatment, the lead levels in DC rose to over 1,250 parts per billion.  That's so high that the water coming out of the kitchen tap legally qualified as hazardous waste.  When informed of this, the water authority tried to hush it up, yanking Edwards's funding and getting the EPA to do the same.  The CDC released a report saying there was no health risk—which they later had to publicly retract after a House investigation found it to be, and I quote, "scientifically indefensible".  That was a major black eye to the CDC and caused huge ripples.  Water systems all over the country changed the way they handle chlorination and pipe replacement because of what happened in DC.  Even today, DC is still struggling with lead contamination issues in their municipal water.  There's 44,000 kids in DC that may be permanently brain-damaged because of this incident.  There are academic articles, newspaper articles, books... heck, I found a Good Housekeeping article about it.  It would be a shame to delete this topic just because no one has bothered to look into it.  I've proposed, per WP:SPINOFF, that the better details at District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority be merged into Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water as a starting point. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've completed the merge, and I'm working my way through the article adding from the massive wealth of information on the topic that's out there. I encourage anyone who !voted early to have a look at the article now, and see if it changes your mind... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * keep misuse if wp:notnews: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. 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. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." the ongoing and continuing scandal is verifiable by multiple reliable sources over time. Notability (events): "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable."; "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."; "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." it has all of these. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2011 (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.