Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Williamsburg oil spill (2)
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 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C14FA3A540C728CDDAD0894DF404482 (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 Blogspot http://gowanuslounge.blogspot.com/ , and I don't think it is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source. I do not discount the neighborhood's concern, and if I was living there, I would be concerned. In fact, I live in Brooklyn and I am familiar with some of the industrial history and the health concerns of residents from the conversion of industrial spaces and lviing near industrial areas. But don't try to justify keeping this article for the purpose of increasing awareness. |Wikipedia is not the place to push for more media coverage of a subject
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SOAP (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)