Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Ottawa Storm


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Ottawa Storm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable storm that lasted one day. Two sources are about Ottawa having the rainiest year ever - unrelated to this one day storm. Others is about a power outage. Very minor, very insignificant. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  03:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Every thunderstorm that happens at all does not automatically need a Wikipedia article just because the power goes out and there's some localized flash flooding — both of which are things that quite routinely happen in conjunction with thunderstorms. What we require is evidence that this would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, such as perhaps a lightning strike setting Parliament on fire, or the Alexandra Bridge collapsing from the sheer volume of precipitation, or an actual tornado ripping through Barrhaven — and even if one of those things did happen, the actual article that resulted would be about those events rather than the thunderstorm per se. But three pieces of same-day coverage in the local media don't demonstrate enduring notability at all. (And, to boot, I'm going to be filing a sockcheck on the creator shortly, because the Ottawa aspect, coupled with the "anything that can be sourced at all automatically warrants an article" aspect, puts me just a little too much in mind of a previously-blocked user.) Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The two sentences of the article are a clear indication that this storm was a routine event. MB 12:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the weather channel. this is a fairly WP:ROUTINE event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I already think editors get carried away with every storm that receives a day of coverage or knocks out power for a few days. The 10-year test? Heck, this fails the 1 day test with only local media routine reports.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Icewhiz. 23.16.17.67 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is more like something that should be in Wikinews than Wikipedia (N.B. it is only two sentences long). Vorbee (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2017 (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.