Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave


 * 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Western North American heat wave

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not the news. For those of you unfamiliar with the western part of North America, heat waves such as this one occur two or three times every summer. There is nothing extremely unusual about this weather event. People die and records get broken in just about every heat wave. Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per article citations. It is unusual for major freeway closures and fish dying from warm waters. Featuresaltlakecity 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And this article is in its infancy. Many records have been broken that have not even been listed yet. Featuresaltlakecity 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either.    MortonDevonshire  Yo   · 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unsure of your intention. Records have already been broken. Featuresaltlakecity 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the temperatures you have listed in that table are forecasted temperatures. That is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  03:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's rephrase from "many" to 3 out of the 13 and those three are verifiably projected (do we not list hurricane projections?). And that is just one part. Featuresaltlakecity 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, without looking at this in detail, it is news and so should be covered by WikiNews first. Only after a bit of reflection and comparison should any event be recorded in Wikipedia.  Breaking records is generally meaningless as they are broken regularly; statistics can be found to support anything, and newspapers usually find them in order to sensationalise events and give people something to talk about over a beer.  Compare with 2007 Western United States freeze for a specific event that is well presented, and 2007 European heat wave for an unreferenced general sky-is-falling piece of news. John Vandenberg 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would favor deletion of the 2 articles you mention, if someone cares to nominate them. OHMYGOD! IT'S 100F! IT'S 35 F! EVERYONE'S GONNA DIE! (So how do people in Baghdad or Alaska survive?) Edison 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Jayvdb and others' comments. --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. belongs in Wikinews, but would require a complete rewrite.  The closure of highways due to fires is hardly unique, neither are heat related deaths. Resolute 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per 1) highest all-time high in state of Utah 2) unusual trout deaths in Yellowstone 3) tied highest all-time high in Las Vegas 4) largest wildfire in West 5) unusually large area affected (100s even in Canada) 6) and freeway closures in America for fires are almost unheard of. Quite frankly the land area, the scope of the area affected by this extreme heat is unprecedented. If we delete this we should absolutely delete the less-notable 2007 European heat wave and 2007 Western United States freeze. Globeism 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply We should probably delete both of those articles regardless of the outcome of this AfD.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. CraigMonroe 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as viral ad for LiveEarth. Seriously, Keep. Yes, heat waves happen, but usually not over this many states at the same time, for this long, and this early (July vs. August). The secondary effects are unusual and extensive. Notability is established in relation to other heat waves. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is an unimportant story and has not yet reached long-term notability. This is not early for a heat wave, nor is it a severe heat wave. How long has it been going on - a week? -- Charlene 06:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its referenced from multiple independent sources. see Category:2007 meteorology for an idea of hat is considered notable for people interested in the weather. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it isn't a news report, but an ecological event in history, one which may continue to be expanded as time goes on. Connell66 08:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A number of temperature records in a number of places (including a fairly large city like Reno) make this event more notable than an average heat wave. Although heat waves are not as dramatic as hurricanes or blizzards, they are just as much a part of the weather. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Keep "The 2007 western North American heat wave is an ongoing record-breaking event" - record-breaking is a good start for notability. We go on to see talk of various other indications of notability - freeway closure, deaths of six people, deaths of hundreds of trout in Yellowston (= environmental disaster) etc etc.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- per reasons above. Storm05 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a classic case of recentism.  So it got hot.  It happens all the time.  All this dramatic hand-waving about "freeway closures" and "all time record highs" is bollocks.  Read the article folks - the freeway closures are due to wildfires, whose connection to a supposed heatwave is speculative at best.  Wildfires happen out west every summer, heatwaves notwithstanding.  Record all time high in Utah?  If you believe an unofficial thermometer.  Reno tied it's all time high, not set a new record.  A group of immigrants perish in the Arizona desert - again, this is a regular (while unfortunate) event that happens with or without "heatwaves".  Does anyone actually read these articles and check the references before nodding in agreement with the claims being made?  This is a regular sort of event that is getting blown way out of proportion here.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hurricanes and tropical storms happen all the time too, but we cover each named storm. We have articles on all 28 storms in the List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, including Tropical Storm Franklin (2005) which never struck on land. We even have a template Ongoing weather applied to the article, so this type of developing article is not so unusual. Dhaluza 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a weather report is a most transient form of news. The article does not show that any all-time records were broken yet. Records for a given calendar day are somewhat trivial because there are so many days during the hot (or cold) season. "The heat wave may extend to eastern North America by July 12, with highs around 100 (38 ºC) for New York and Washington D.C.[1]" does not belong in an encyclopedia, because it is trivial and because is a crystal ball prediction, and because those would not be records. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to have an article about how hot it gets every summer and how cold it gets every winter in every part of every country. This is despite the fact that the weather (actual or predicted) is a part of every newscast and every newspaper, thus seeming to satisfy WP:N and WP:A. It is newsworthy, because people want to plan their daily activities, but not generally encyclopedic because it is often too hot, cold, wet or dry for comfort. The Great Blizzard of 1888 is encyclopedic because it caused vast property damage and a high death toll, and led to requirements that more power lines be placed underground in cities. The 1871 fire in Peshtigo, Wisconsin  is encyclopedic, because a heat wave parched the forest and prairie, followed by the winds from a cold front which fanned the flames. The Dust Bowl was a notable pattern of heat and drought and social upheaval. All had lasting consequences.  This kind of article is best written retrospectively. For now, cover the weather in Wikinews. The article about global warming could have mention of these phenomena if reliable sources relate the events to that claimed trend. Edison 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to refer any all-time records for drought or heat to Climate of the United States, but there is no such article, while there is Climate of the United Kingdom. Wierd. Edison 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you consider the vast size of the US compared to the UK, it isn't that odd. Hell, going from Seattle to Montana results in an entirely different climate, nevermind the other points of the nation. Resolute 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ther state boundaries are drawn rather arbitrarily, and certainly not to delineate climate zones. Some states cross between climate zones. An article on Climate of the United States should break it into 5 or so zones and discuss the climate of each, and recent possible climate changes (hotter and dryer in the west, wetter in the central, etc). Edison 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a heat wave somewhere every summer.  It's not especially notable.  Wikinews is a better site for commonplace events.  Coemgenus 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a Super Bowl every winter, yet we have an article on each one, and this heat wave arguably has greater social and economic impact. Recurrence is not a reason for deleting an article. There are many other cases of recurring topics. In order for them to be commonplace, they would also have to be similar, and then a single article could cover all (but not no article on all). When the topics have notable differences, they should have separate articles. Perhaps at the end of the event, the results will be similar to other heat waves, and the article content can be merged. Until then, having a separate article for the developing story is appropriate. Dhaluza 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Severe weather happens all of the time. When century-old records are broken and sources are provided for unusual effects, notability is established. Alansohn 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment there is no requirement for a subject to be an extreme example to be notable. Extremes are notable, but Notability only requires that people take notice, and this event has crossed well over that threshold. WP would be rather worthless if it only had articles on the best and worst of each subject. Dhaluza 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep having lived through it, it may be difficult to be entirely objective although a weather phenomenon resulting in multiple records falling, and much press seems to be notable. With records falling in the midwest and east, it'll probably be due a rename shortly. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely. Considering the number of records it's breaking and/or establishing, it's very much a keeper.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Event seems notable enough for encyclopedic coverage and article is sourced. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, weather varies. Iterator12n  Talk 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article easily satisfies WP:NOTABILITY by having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject (arguments questioning a reporter's independence of God notwithstanding ;)) Evouga 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Wikipedia reports things that are reported to a significant degree in the news. Everyking 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Otherwise we might as well delete the entire list included in Heat_wave. -- Loukinho 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2007 European heat wave and 2007 South Asian heat wave and just call it the 2007 heat wave or something like that. --PiMaster3 talk 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's sound. We're talking about three distinctive regions.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to see some source to verify the nominators statements, or even some certification in meteorology. Obviously heat waves are worth writing about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Heat_waves, and they have to be started sometime, there's enough to write about already, so keep it. user:Bassgoonist User_talk:Bassgoonist 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is precisely what WP is especially good for--providing current encyclopedic content. WP:NOT is not applicable, because the story has run through several news cycles. WP:NOT is also inapplicable, because Notabality has already been established--we don't have to wait to see how notable it ultimately becomes before writing an article. On a side note, I also find the dismissiveness of some of the comments disheartening--what has WP become? Dhaluza 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Edison's comments about genuinely notable weather events. — X ile 07:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk
 * 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.