Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2013 New Haven Line Power Outage


 * 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. Between redirect and keep.  Sandstein  20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

September 2013 New Haven Line Power Outage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article may not meet the notability guidelines, it is not blatant enough to warrant a CSD. Kb03 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC) It is certainly notable as it effected the busiest rail line in the United States, at 125,000 daily week day riders, reducing service for 12 days, warranted a Congressional Hearing where the MTA's president was held accountable, and includes interesting technical details and findings from a public report that epicgenius and his associates seem to enjoy removing and hiding. Thanks. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to New Haven Line/weak keep. This was an incident requiring intervention by a member of U.S. Congress, and had minor lasting impact. As such it was barely notable, and should probably be redirected. Pinging, the article's creator, and , who also discussed this matter at Talk:New Haven Line. epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Edit: a few words. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. Newsworthy, yes; notable, no.TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)#REDIRECT
 * Weak Keep. Before this article was created, I was thinking that a spin-out might be a reasonable way to resolve the debate on the talk page. I'm not really convinced this is notable at all, but having it spun out into a side article is certainly preferable to putting this level of technical detail in the main article. To do so would be WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Compare, for example, the coverage we have of an earlier event which inflicted a similar scale outage: The Great Blizzard of 1888 blocked the rail line in Westport, between the Saugatuck and Green's Farms stations. It took eight days to restore service, as snow was dug out by hand.. That's all we say about that. Why should this event require anything more than a similar two-sentence mention? Railroads are constantly having technical problems. Power outages. Fires. Derailments. Crashes. Not every one is so notable that it requires this level of detailed coverage in an encyclopedia. But, as I said, if we are going to cover it, at least don't clutter up the (already overly detailed) main article. I have no particular objection to a redirect, but given that it's an unlikely search term, I can't argue that it's necessary. Certainly, merging this back into the main article would be inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak arguments for political censorship: @RoySmith, why is it so imperative for you and your associates to remove the findings of a public report that impacted the busiest railroad in the United States, at 125,000 daily weekday riders, in the modern era, for 12 days. Not to mention that the MTA has consistently been in the news for poor maintenance and service, which makes this an even more important and enlightening issue for public consumption. The Wikipedia platform is meant to enlighten, not hide. Thanks for your concerns for the laymen.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not political censorship, but this is better than having excessive detail in the main New Haven Line article. And please don't ram your argument through. It's not likely to convince people to support keeping this article. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per RoySmith and explicitly not per Smellyshirt5 who is attacking all the wrong people in the interest of teh frees peechs. The information on the incident is encyclopedically useful, and RoySmith's statement here is a pretty good explanation of why a merge is not preferable. It's a thing that happened, it was noteworthy on a regional scale (maybe national considering it was investigated by an agency of the US government), has had a lasting (albeit minor) impact, and is sufficiently well-documented. Just for the hell of it I'm also going to throw in that I like it, having been around for the 1995 Russell Hill incident and lived through the 2003 Northeast Blackout. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep though the background section is a little weak and could use some improvement, it definitely seems like a notable event that affected many people and attracted mass media coverage, and I think the article has potential to be an informative one with some improvement in the background section and perhaps some additional detail on the measures Metro-North took to provide alternative service.  TITAN O SAURUS  00:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Passes wp:gng easily. Markvs88 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Undecided but waving over redirection because this (and I'm sure it has been) is a common event, it happens in part in the UK but most of them don't reach national news. This would benefit being in the New Haven Line article as per EpicGenius as in its current form it doesn't warrant an article of its own. Nightfury 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Note adding because of Senator's request for hearing. Nightfury 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The content is clearly significant, and as RoySmith explained, a merge is impractical. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep In this case, disputes at the New Haven Line page, length of that article, and WP:SIGCOV of this particular power outage justify a separate page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect I'm going to assume this is notable/that reliable secondary sources exist (other users have noted there may have been media coverage) from the consensus above so I'm not going to vote delete, but the sourcing is terrible and I think the article fails WP:GNG on its face. I'm not sure any of the sources are truly independent of the incident, several are obviously primary, and I think this can be easily written up concisely in the main article. SportingFlyer  talk  05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose redirect as WP:UNDUE. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.  This outage received intense regional coverage, which continued for a couple of years.   I just added a series of sources to the page from which article can be expanded.  The fact that the page needs improvement is  not a reason to delete (or effectively delete via redirect,) since sourcing, including SECONDARY sourcing does exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't understand the WP:UNDUE link. All of the new articles are by the same author in the same time frame, which was all during the outage. I'm also finding this topic incredibly hard to search for on WP:BEFORE grounds. It's not obvious on its face that this is a notable event to me, or that it can't be covered in a couple sentences on the main page. SportingFlyer  talk  11:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * thinking out loud I wonder whether the thing to do might be to broaden this article into a page about maintenance issues in the 2010s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- this event was widely covered and affected the USA's busiest rail line. It appears to pass WP:GNG. I am not against a redirect if consensus prefers that instead. Redditaddict69 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.