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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006 North Ossetia pipeline explosions[edit]

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

For three and a half years this article was placed at 2006 North Ossetia sabotages, which is of course POV. As it stands now the article is a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS, in that aside from the routine reporting of news reports on 22 and 23 January 2006, there is no evidence of long-lasting notability for this very minor incident, in that aside from the explosion, Saakaskhvili claiming it was sabotage, Russia telling Saakashvili to stop being a hysterical drama queen, and Russia restoring gas supplies to Georgia 24 hours after the explosion, there is no other coverage, meaning this article also suffers from a huge lack of notability in an encyclopaedic context. Russavia ^Dialogue 09:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination is a prime example of a WP:N-based article deletion rationale that is not benefitting or improving the Wikipedia project. I added a NYTimes reference to the article, and it is abundantly clear, that the news coverage positioned the event in a broad political and energy security context - coverage was far beyond the event itself. Evenso, any explosion of a gas transmission mains is probably notable, from a gas safety point of view, land use planning experts etc. I find the nom's language problematic - "this very minor incident", "Saakaskhvili [.. is ..] a hysterical drama queen" - who is POV pushing here? Power.corrupts (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a tough call on this one. Part of WP:BIAS is to determine whether this would be a keep if it had happened in the average Wikipedian's backyard, since there is that "It was on CNN!" mentality that anything that happened yesterday in the United States merits its own article. Would it be historically notable if Detroit's natural gas supplies had been disrupted in the middle of January? Maybe not. Would it be notable, however, if the Governor Of Michigan had publicly blamed it on a deliberate act sponsored by a hostile nation? Probably so. Mandsford (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Broad coverage in the international media and scholarly works published in the years that followed renders the subject of this article notable enough. Intentions of this strongly pro-Kremlin user are clear: to get rid of the article which demonstrates one of the rings in the sequence of Russia's failed moves to pressure Georgia into submission. Sources are abundant on Google Books: [1], [2], etc.--Kober^Talk 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (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.