Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter storm naming

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) buff bills 7701 01:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winter storm naming

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

This is essentially a promotional piece for The Weather Channel, a lone source that serves a portion of the US Market, which is followed by a list of names, and then paragraphs of the places that condemn the naming practises of TWC. Merge to The Weather Channel. Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't love the title, but the naming of winter storms has gotten a significant amount of press coverage over a significant amount of time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sources, controversy in the news. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG only presumes notability based on reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS is contravened by the latter point, and both can be equally mentioned in The Weather Channel's article (much condensed). Most of the press coverage has been bashing TWC for continuing to commercialize these names despite protest from a number of key organizations. It's also perpetuating the use of these pointless and local names in the lede of the way-to-many winter storm articles we have because of the panic of the press. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of this subject is made clear by multiple independent reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't stand the concept of this (The second TWC-named storm in 2012 had a successful AfD), but this has insulated itself beyond TWC into other media, social media and the like and has notability beyond what we had in the Brutus AfD. However I'd prefer the article also have a history of local storm naming (e.g. local stations which have named their area winter storms for generations) in addition to the national Weather Channel concept. Nate • (chatter) 18:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winter storm naming is not confined to the weather channel or the United States. Plenty of reliable secondary sources make up the article. I was thinking of writing a Wikipedia essay on how to go about naming winter storm articles, consensus seems to be in favor of leaving the WC names out of the article titles. (Per NPOV, nobody can argue against the storms being winter storms). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged the article with a worldwide tag, seeing the article is named "Winter storm naming" it needs winter storm naming in other countries as well that follow or do not follow this practice. I know in Europe for example in some countries they have a winter storm naming system. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something along the lines of Winter Storm Nomenclature. I do think this is probably notable however I really am on the fence overall. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the article has some challenges, but the naming of winter storms in the US is both notable and verifiable, as shown in reliable sources, so the article should stay. Potential renaming of the article is a subject for the Talk page, and not for this AfD. Having said that, if that discussion gets started after this AfD has run its course, I'd be happy to weigh in if someone pings me to let me know it is going on. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I see no reason to remove it at all. We have far more "promotional" articles. This is related to TWC, but would be too separate to merge. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Obviously has multiple reliable sources. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This article does not offer a worldwide view and only represents what one commercial weather entity names storms in the US. This article should be merged into The Weather Channel to reflect that.

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.