Talk:Longfellow Boom

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Minneapolis Police Department, and neighborhood residents have all attempted to investigate the origin of the Longfellow Boom?

• Source: various, in article, primarily: Snow, Jasmine (July 24, 2022). "Source Elusive for 'Longfellow Boom'". Star Tribune. pp. B5. Retrieved December 15, 2025.

• • ALT1: ... that the mysterious Longfellow Boom has been attributed to rail cars coupling, secret NORAD flights, an underground meth lab, or a fault line in the Mississippi River? Source: various, in article, primarily: Snow, Jasmine (July 24, 2022). "Source Elusive for 'Longfellow Boom'". Star Tribune. pp. B5. Retrieved December 15, 2025.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Caden Pinnick

Created by Darth Stabro (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 58 past nominations.

~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC).

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to merge the article with Longfellow, Minneapolis. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Longfellow Boom into Longfellow, Minneapolis. I think the content in Longfellow Boom can easily be explained in the context of this article with some trimming. The booms are only notable in the context of the community. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose (article creator) it meets WP:GNG and other such phenomena have similar articles, such as Bloop, The Hum, and Forest Grove Sound. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Bloop and The Hum are non-local phenomena. Forest Grove Sound, a one-time local incident, has an unresolved deletion discussion on its talk page from February 2025; if not deleted it should likely be merged with Forest Grove, Oregon as fails WP:SUSTAINED and succumbs to WP:SBST. The Longfellow, Minneapolis article could easily absorb the content from the Longfellow Boom without undue weight. Minnemeeples (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Support merge per WP:NOPAGE. There's no reason for this one aspect of Longfellow to be separate from the Longfellow article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The concept is individually notable unto itself per WP:GNG which is enough of a policy reason for me. Personally speaking as a former resident of the area—this is more so my own stance and not a technical point—I can see a possibility where readers outside of our neighborhood may be interested in the Longfellow Boom itself as a mysterious occurrence while not at all being interested in Longfellow, Minneapolis. In that case, I support its existence as a standalone page of interest separate from the neighborhood. Phibeatrice (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.