Deletion of September 2013 New Haven Line Power Outage

Comment: I'm going to assume this is notable/that reliable secondary sources exist (other users have noted there may have been media coverage) from the consensus above so I'm not going to vote delete, but the sourcing is terrible and I think the article fails  on its face. I'm not sure any of the sources are truly independent of the incident, several are obviously primary, and I think this can be easily written up concisely in the main article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per RoySmith and explicitly ''not'' per Smellyshirt5 who is attacking all the wrong people in the interest of teh frees peechs. The information on the incident is encyclopedically useful, and RoySmith's statement here is a pretty good explanation of why a merge is not preferable. It's a thing that happened, it was noteworthy on a regional scale (maybe national considering it was investigated by an agency of the US government), has had a lasting (albeit minor) impact, and is sufficiently well-documented. Just for the hell of it I'm also going to throw in that |I like it, having been around for the 1995 Russell Hill incident and lived through the 2003 Northeast Blackout
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDLI)

Comment: this event was widely covered and affected the USA's busiest rail line. It appears to pass . I am not against a redirect if consensus prefers that instead
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: In this case, disputes at the New Haven Line page, length of that article, and  of this particular power outage justify a separate page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Before this article was created, I was thinking that a spin-out might be a reasonable way to resolve Talk:New Haven Line#September 2013 electric failure|the debate on the talk page. I'm not really convinced this is notable at all, but having it spun out into a side article is certainly preferable to putting this level of technical detail in the main article. To do so would be  and . Compare, for example, the coverage we have of an earlier event which inflicted a similar scale outage: ''The Great Blizzard of 1888 blocked the rail line in Westport, between the Saugatuck and Green's Farms stations. It took eight days to restore service, as snow was dug out by hand.''. That's all we say about that. Why should this event require anything more than a similar two-sentence mention? Railroads are constantly having technical problems. Power outages. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/nyregion/fire-disrupts-metro-north-service-out-of-grand-central.html Fires. Derailments. Crashes. Not every one is so notable that it requires this level of detailed coverage in an encyclopedia. But, as I said, if we are going to cover it, at least don't clutter up the (already overly detailed) main article. I have no particular objection to a redirect, but given that it's an unlikely search term, I can't argue that it's necessary. Certainly, merging this back into the main article would be inappropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:RECENTISM)