Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Williamsburg oil spill (2)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. After the !votes of IPs and SPAs are discounted, there's a majority to delete. More importantly, the arguments for deletion establish that this is a local news story, not an encyclopedic subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Williamsburg oil spill
AfDs for this article:
- Williamsburg oil spill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
No context given, this appears to be about a local news event. Article doesn't even make it clear they are talking about a neighborhood in NYC. Maybe belongs in wikinews. rogerd 20:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep seems to discuss the situation in general, not just current local news, and does have sources. (Unlike most spills, this is chronic, not a one-time event--is there perhaps a better word than "spill") Possibly should be rewritten to put the general historical material first. DGG 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and wikify. Adequately sourced and once N always N. --]
- Not really the case, notabily can fade away with age, especially local news events that what this to be case Delete wat's sup 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the John Vandenberg 05:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Here we go again. The article lacks context, is once again copyvio of this article or this one. Both speediable offenses. Ohconfucius 08:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten the copyvio section (I hope), so deletion should be based on the article as it is now. Tinlinkin 10:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But we can't keep the copyvio version because of the wat's sup 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But we can't keep the copyvio version because of the
- Delete or
merge to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. After rewriting part of the article, it appears that this is largely a local story with implications only to the Williamsburg neighborhood. At first I thought this was talking about the Greenpoint oil spill, but this is about a different, possibly unrelated, situation that only affects one construction site and its localized area. The sentence "The Williamsburg "aka Roebling" Oil Spill is getting a lot of attention from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, but not much attention from the mainstream media." is also troubling, since the only secondary sources are essentially a blog (Gowanus Lounge) and a short New York Times article. Tinlinkin 10:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Perhaps better to transwiki to Wikinews, given it might be better off as a news article, but I still don't believe it is worthy as an encyclopedia article yet. Tinlinkin 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The New York Times covered the oil spill on april 1 2007. The DEC has been investigating the origin of the spill and are trying to determine its size which, considering the long history of the astral oil site on the Williamsburg waterfront, could be millions of gallons. The spill has required the NYS DEC to put borings all over the community. This is not an isolated or insignificant event. The Astral Oil property and the Eastern district terminal site are Federal Envirionmental Superfund sites. The idea that major events that have been covered by one major media source can be subject to deletion seems suspect. If there are issues with the structure of the article, then that should be corrected, but deletion is not warranted.71.247.67.172 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC) — 71.247.67.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- By your logic, an NYT article about the controversial removal of a highway exit ramp [1] could be a Wikipedia article. That's also a big concern to local residents. You should be concerned if a single article is the source of all information. Quoting from WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people." If you are unable to find multiple reliable sources now, wait until the investigation is finished, if you're so sure it is a "major event". If it is a major event, it would have greater media coverage by then. Tinlinkin 08:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By your logic, an NYT article about the controversial removal of a highway exit ramp [1] could be a Wikipedia article. That's also a big concern to local residents. You should be concerned if a single article is the source of all information. Quoting from
- keep This is no passing story. As more of the envirionmental consequenses of Eastern district terminal's industrial past become revealed this historical event becomes the catalyst for the adoption of more rigorous remediation and midigation strategies.68.161.44.129 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — 68.161.44.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, as far as I can see, there has been no reliable sources willing to call this an oil spill, so the current article title can not be used. As the current status is unknown, this is better covered on John Vandenberg 03:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep There is already an underground oil discovery with an identical history, except for the location, called a spill and is cataloged as Greenpoint Oil Spill so the naming seems appropriate. The NY times has published a story about this spills. Also DEC confirms the spills existence. One of the more well known blogs "The Gowanus Lounge" has done some extensive investigative work on the environmental concern. Although the oil has seeped underground, and not into a body of visible water, does not preclude it from being named a spill.Wburged 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Wburged (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The three "Keep" votes after mine overstate the influence of the New York Times article on the Wikipedia article's subject. (They may also suggest that they could have come from a single editor.) The reliance on the single Times article [2] (published as a Sunday "The City" neighborhood story, if there are WP editors familiar with The Times), and the Gowanus Lounge blog is weak for a Wikipedia article. While it may be amateur journalism, and regardless of the credentials of the author, the Gowanus Lounge blog is an independent blog hosted on Wikipedia is not the place to push for more media coverage of a subject.
- If you (most likely addressed to WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If the AfD result is to transwiki to WikiNews, all of the above would still be good advice. Tinlinkin 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.