Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 North American winter storms


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 North American winter storms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not finding this article to be that relevant. There is no sense in mentioning every little snow, and all the big ones have their own articles. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I already quite clearly gave all of my reasons for the article here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology. Maybe you should watch the talk page, because you must have completely missed the discussion. I believe the purpose of the article is quite valid. I will probably lose all editors because of this, but I will not allow for standard deletion, preferring re-userfication. Dustin ( talk ) 11:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, the season itself should easily satisfy WP:GNG given the number of historic storms. At a minimum, this could function well as an overview of "all the big ones [that] have their own articles" (itself a reason to have a master article or list indexing them together), and would undoubtedly satisfy WP:LISTN as those "big ones" have been discussed as a group by reliable sources. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not every single snow event is notable, we already have a template Template:United States Blizzards that covers the notable ones and links all of them together. The template also shows that just three of the events have their own articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Both of you are completely ignoring the reasons given. You give no reasons to counter my own reasons on that page. Also. I repeat, not every significant event has a lot of media coverage; you are choosing to completely ignore them for unjustified reasons. A significant storm might impact 4,000,000 people in the Central US, vs the single city of NYC; the latter is more likely to receive attention because that is where most national media headquarters are, not necessarily because it was more important, or even significant. Please stop ignoring the comments on the page I linked in my previous comment. Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY says "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." I would most certainly not consider these storms to be only loosely connected.  Dustin  ( talk ) 20:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When I give it some extra thought, I suppose United States Man might not have seen the linked discussion yet; he hasn't replied (at least not yet). Dustin  ( talk ) 20:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion, there were concerns about what the article should and should not cover in order to avoid an AfD. Weather happens all over the world what is stopping the ones included from being more than WP:NOTNEWS? At the very least this should have been left in the incubator until more editors were on board and some kind of inclusion criteria thought out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep There's still plenty of room for improvement. How can you expect this article to be good when very few people are editing it? Besides, Wikipedia hasn't done one of these articles in 4 years, so a rough start is to be expected. However, this article is a great place for containing information about the major winter storms of this winter storm season, and it's potential greatly outweighs the reasons given for its proposed deletion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.