Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998 St. Cloud explosion

: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) czar · · 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

=[[1998 St. Cloud explosion]]=

:{{la|1998 St. Cloud explosion}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1998_St._Cloud_explosion Stats])

:({{Find sources|1998 St. Cloud explosion}})

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS covers this.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

...William 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not sure WP:NOTNEWS applies to something that happened in 1998, and there is sufficent coverage to establish notability. [http://www.sctimes.com/article/20100829/NLETTER02/108290006/Gas-line-blast-kills-4], [http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/12/us/gas-explosion-kills-at-least-4-in-minnesota-city-s-downtown.html], [http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/071200/new_0712000026.shtml], [http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/080800/new_0808000010.shtml], [http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/12/news/mn-53304], [http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/11/explosion.02/], etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) ~~Weak~~ keep. The incident received national coverage at the time [http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/12/news/mn-53304 LA Times], [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-12-11/news/9812120190_1_natural-gas-buildings-courthouse-square Chicago Tribune], [http://archive.mprnews.org/stories/19981214/back-work-saint-cloud-starts-rebuild-after-gas-explosion Minnesota Public Radio] (unsurprising, but a few days after the event, so it wasn't forgotten about the next day). It has, subsequently, received a number of mentions in the press [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-impact-gas-pipeline-safety-valves-resisted AP report] (2012), [http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/092802/new_0928020005.shtml Brainerd Dispatch], along with all the hits you get from the gnews link above if you remove the quotes from the search term (which seem to be mostly relevant). Given the fairly wide coverage at the time and the fact that it seems that any article written in the US media about gas explosions and gas safety valves at least mentions this event, I think the article probably ought to be kept. Dricherby (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep How does WP:NOTNEWS apply to this? This event happened 15 years ago. If you looked you would find alot of sources JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep for the reasons stated above. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 19:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
Keep - Bushranger has found sources that range across years of time: evidence that this topic is notable and meeting WP:PERSISTENCE. Further, notability is not temporary. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep, notability established by sources. Everyking (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2013 (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.