Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Damon

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Storm Damon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:N(E). While the storm broke some records for rainfall, the impact was relatively minimal for a nor'easter. The numbers for those without power are at 50,000, which is pretty low. Both deaths were also indirect deaths, caused by car accidents. I find it highly unlikely that this storm will be discussed, in the media, or among meteorologists, much after a couple days. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Have there been many other winter storm articles that have used the (bogus IMHO) Weather Channel (TWC) naming system? In my expereince, almost no one but TWC will be referring to these winter storms by these names now & in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been at least one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus (deleted). Winter Storm Nemo is a redirect as an unofficial name. Winter Storm Freyr redirects to The Weather Channel. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, and I was going to move it, but I figured that we should conduct the AfD first; if the consensus is keep, then we can move it, but there's no point moving it if it's just going to end up deleted. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move - Article is well sourced, and if it should not be kept, it should be moved to "2014 extreme weather events", as 2013 extreme weather events has an article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The issue is not a lack of sources, but that the event was only talked about briefly while it was actually happening (see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). I'm also not convinced it should be moved to 2014 extreme weather events, because the storm was not an extreme event. It had a minimal impact, and the only records it broke were daily records over the past 40 years. It did not set any all-time daily records, and it did not break any all-time records. Furthermore, 2014 extreme weather events does not exist, and moving this over to be its sole entry, without being vastly expanded, would have the same effect as just keeping the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not a notable storm (2.5" of rain isn't that much; it was just a record for a few sites on that particular day of the year), and winter storm naming is a TWC gimmick that no official agency recognizes.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article does not assert why the subject is notable, and the storm does not have very much significant coverage. Your average run of the mill snowstorm. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:37, 3 January 2015 (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.