Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of weather reports and temperature readings. No significant effects of the heat wave documented by sources. Hence not notable WP:SYNTH. — JFG talk 08:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS','Courier New',Verdana; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete on account of poor sourcing, especially for an ostensibly notable meteorological event. -The Gnome (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability not established. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A heat wave is not automatically notable just because you can list a bunch of record high temperatures — a heat wave has to have significant and sustained effects that generate ongoing coverage beyond just routine weather reports. Bearcat (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge  into List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We could merge this text, yes, but only if we can find a policy that permits inadequately sourced text to be moved around in Wikipedia rather than deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 *  Keep  as wikipedia is more then big enough to be anything one can imagine. A user should be able to use this gold mine to search through heatwaves and record events that are historical in nature. Why not? Matthurricane (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. You may well argue to keep the contested article but not on a basis that runs contrary to Wikipedia policy! Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a "goldmine" of "anything one can imagine". There are specific criteria for the subject of a WP article. It must be, for starters, and above all else, verifiably notable. Wikipedia is not constructed by what I or you know and believe but on the basis of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There is evidence that this particular heat wave is the subject of coverage, and that it is significant. It is the basis for a new understanding of climate change and heat waves in the region: This heat wave is cited as part of a cultural shift in the region that had previously not widely used air conditioners.. The problems with indiscriminate statistics and such are fixable. The data can be consolidated or reformatted, or otherwise summarized in a more encyclopedic way. I'd probably put it into an infographic of some kind, and collapse the crosstab. There's various ways of cleaning that up, not germane to AfD. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not forget that we editors are not the ones who will "consolidate" or "reformat" data, because that would be quite blatantly original work. We need others, i.e. third-party, secondary, independent sources, to do the "consolidating" and the "reformatting", which we then may post up in an article. As to the references you cited, they are about something else (e.g. air conditioners!) and mention as an aside the prevalent high temperatures. Note, in this context, that in the popular media the word "heat wave" is used indiscriminately and without any concern at all about accuracy or relevancy. -The Gnome (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia supports several templates that generate graphs from tabular data. Or images of info graphs can be uploaded to Commons. Your assertion that summarizing data is original research is found nowhere in WP:NOR, because it’s not. In fact, what I said is the same as the policy WP:NOTSTATS. Even if the statistics can’t be presented in some other format, the article can be cleaned up by simply deleting the tables. Nothing here is a reason to delete. I’ve cited reliable sources saying that the topic is notable. That’s the only thing that matters at AfD. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. I should have been much clearer. I will repeat in hopefully clearer terms.
 * Wikipedia does allow us to produce graphs and upload images, indeed, Dennis Bratland. I know that since, after all, I have done my share of uploading graphs. But what we are NOT meant to do is, again, the interpretation of the data. We are NOT allowed to gather data about, say, the weather and proclaim, on our own, that they indicate some kind of specific type of weather, e.g. "mild," "extreme", a "heat wave," etc. We can go into graphic representation to the extent Wikipedia permits, yes, but the interpretation is off limits. (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and so on) -The Gnome (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing that really surpasses an ordinary heat wave in the current sourcing or discussion above. Breaking a few records isn't the bar that will satisfy GNG on this subject. It looks like a pretty standard heat wave from reading the article sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.