Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakota Electric Outage of 2010

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota Electric Outage of 2010[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. So there was an outage. Big deal, they happen all the time. Article's main goal seems to be begging for donations ("The Episcopal Church has stepped in to help the reservations residents survive this winter but are in need of donations.") Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, a short-lived burst of news reports does not automatically make an ordinary incident notable and I fail to see any historical significance in this one. — Rankiri (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Geeeeeez, really? Does this look like Wikinews? We ought to have a moratorium of 6 months on current events like this! JBsupreme (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel bad for everyone affected (especially the families of those killed), but it doesn't seem all that notable. TJ Spyke 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Prime example of where effort that would be appreciated on Wikinews went to waste, sadly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Indians freeze to death in their homes out on a reservation in a horrible storm and for some reason it's not article worthy. --Dashbullder (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try not to confuse "article worthy" with "newsworthy". It is certainly newsworthy. One thing, though: WE ARE NOT A NEWSPAPER. JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd add that I haven't seen in either the article or the linked news item that anyone literally froze to death. A second reference is made below to "damage, injuries and any deaths" but I haven't seen anything about a fatality. Power outages are an unfortunate byproduct of snowstorms, affecting all persons whose power lines are down, regardless of ancestry. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. AS noted, it is sad for the families impacted, but there are better venues for covering the event - and for seeking donations. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Blizzards tormenting Native Americans are just as worthy as any others. Note the damage, injuries and any deaths.--86.29.138.128 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's great write off!--Cordilia Chasse (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - arguably, a weak keep, as it has gotten some coverage on DailyKos and other blogs, but sadly does not have staying power. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is weak on sourcing, but it does crucially provide a link to an article in The Wall Street Journal on this subject. That's good enough for me. This nomination is a good example of one of the common fallacies of deletionism: "I think this is boring and/or mundane." But it is not for Wikipedians to determine what is boring and/or mundane—our job is to review the sources to determine what is deemed notable by the world. If a weather event happens that I think is mundane, but has received a great deal of press coverage, then it's notable no matter what I think. Everyking (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. There is no large geographical scope, no evidence of lasting importance and the sources do not constitute the "depth" given in policy; it's an article, not an editorial or critique. Ironholds (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First North American blizzard of 2010. ---Dough 48 72 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note I'm Googling up some sources to judge it by! 02:01, I have found 3 so far.02:07, I've substantially upgraded it and added the sources. 02:32 --86.29.139.140 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not news. Coverage on DailyKos doesn't establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- It's all crapped up with poor spelling.--86.29.134.225 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- I see the AfD debate has be hijacked by 'deleteists'. I added WikiProject North Dakota|class=C|importance=Low to the talk page.--86.29.133.71 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a valid argument with your statement. Ironholds (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability - It dose not meet "general notability guideline". It was to short, the place is to small and no one died.--86.29.143.110 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2010 (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.