Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents


 * 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   keep per WP:SNOW and cleanup. No arguments have been advanced for deletion except by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not encyclopedic. Overblown daily diary which is a dumping ground for all sorts of miscellaneous news. Johnfos (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC) c 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the References alone make this VERY worthwhile but this is one of the most interesting topics now and will remain so for months. After the event is resolved I perceive the timeline as being notable/of vast historical value - there is no other record as complete and especially none with the range of references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Requires a clean up, yes, but a timeline is a notable and accepted article of major events. The main page Fukushima I nuclear accidents and 2011 Japanese nuclear incidents are too large for this info to be merged into.  Ravendrop 03:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It might not be completely encyclopedic, but I think an exception can and should be made for this disaster. I think this article is a good place to learn of recent developments. It would be almost impossible to extract this information from the other articles. In my opinion this article should be kept until this whole crisis is over. Mkomkomko (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is still not known how events will turn and what the eventual outcome will be. I agree that the article is a bit messy at the moment but there is much useful information that can be edited down at a later date and it would be a shame to throw all that away for the sake of immediate tidiness. —MegaPedant 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup I rely on this article for recent events, but agree that the article is not encyclopedic enough, cleanup and consolidation of past events would help tremendously, a lot of the information was only of interest when it happened as has no permanent value. Jesper Jurcenoks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep This is one of the most important documents ever to be placed on Wikipedia. It is an important document because it is an instrument of honesty and accountability. It is important because so many lives have been affected this accident. People have been forced from their homes. People have gotten radiation poisoning. History is being made as we are seeing a the balance and progression of a Natural Disaster VS a Man-made disaster. Nuclear power plants exploded; there is no undoing of it. If this document is removed than I say that Wikipedia loses all respectability. The removal of this document would show that Wikipedia caters to dishonesty and kneels before propagandists. As a 8-hour a week reader of Wikipedia, I say if you remove this document, you might as well remove all the rest. BrendaEM' —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep and Re-link to the Fukushima nuclear accident article. I was very surprised when I found that is no more linked to that page!! Very important data in this article. Please keep it. Elmao (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Re-link! This is an extremely valuable resource. I have it bookmarked and check it daily. Let your idea of "encyclopedia" expand to include lists such as this. If you don't like it, don't look, and leave this wealth of information to the rest of us. My browser has a scroll bar -- I would like to see this list keep expanding, unabridged, as events unfold over the decades and perhaps centuries that our species will be dealing with this mess. Do not narrow-mindedly destroy this record or make it more difficult to access. 24.8.102.25 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep complete and update. This is a unique resource, during the incident it can appear a bit confused (things are changing everyday), but VERY useful to all, in the medium and long term it can be re-engineered to be a GREAT article. It should be updated and completed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcg54 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this a serious good-faith proposal? This is a detailed description of the events in japan in sequence as they occurred. Can anyone honestly say that is not information of world interest? I would oppose any reformatting of this page which would damage the clarity of the information. The time-line format places events precisely in sequence and I do not see how such an article can be written without repeated reference to timestamps.Sandpiper (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sandpiper. Hopefully this can be snow closed.— S Marshall  T/C 11:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We are still in the midst of the "accident sequence". It bears repeating that, according to experts, Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated. --Tenmei (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Semicolo. I read the deletions rules and it's not clear to me which one(s) this article is breaking. I wanted to know how it was going at the nuclear plant and was happy to find this detailed timeline. It IS encyclopedic in my opinion. 12:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semicolo (talk • contribs)
 * Keep A major incident and a timeline is valuable. Time spent raising this AfD could have been more usefully spent on cleaning it up. A two-headed mutant atom-trout for this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly for now, maybe for good. This article is an excellent place to read about how things have unfolded and find the latest news.  -- ke4roh (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep of course! The brutal editing has generated an epic discussion which has lasted for days now, and today you simply want to delete the whole thing? The consensus seems extremely clear against it: the world cannot loose this. Johnfos, why are you making this a personal crusade? Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.7.50 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up. The article in its current state is a bit of a mess, but this is absolutely a necessary article to have. I'm almost tempted to ask Johnfos if this is a serious proposal but that wouldn't be assuming good faith. Should be snowballed. Specs112   t
 * Keep, for now. Maybe it should go eventually but let it exist a little longer. This disaster is still very active and throughout the disaster this particular article has been one of the best places I've found anywhere online to stay up to date each day with the changes. Let it exist until the disaster settles down and becomes less active. 151.141.68.83 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Definitely an article of note for the time being. Needs a cleanup in its current state and could be nominated for deletion at a later date. Noom  talk contribs 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where else are we going to find this information? It's too hard to find certain details in the main article, but if we know when something happened, we can likely find something here. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think anyone would disagree that the event is encyclopedia-worthy. This seems very much a work-in-progress that can be expected to evolve rapidly into a more conventional form as soon as the current event retreats into history. If it still looks like this two years from now, maybe there's a problem — or not — but for the time being this should stand, methinks. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Relevant, definitely notable. Needs clean up though, any volunteers? --TitanOne (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very important information! Certainly of note! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.163.230 (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pile on the keepwagon -- I think this is all useful but too long to go in the main article. -- Selket Talk 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It should come as no surprise that the article needs cleanup, since it is a current event. Needless to say, it is notable and will be forever, and has too much information to merge into the main article.  Just adding mine to the pile.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup - This article has problems, but it is a legit split. --M4gnum0n (talk) 19:51, 13 April 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.