Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 20–21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

December 20–21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page was made during the blizzard, when local Colorado newscasters were prompting this as a so called "storm of the century" type of blizzard. Now three years later, after the WP:RECENTISM has died down, we have to look at this from an encyclopedic point of view. Since Wikipedia is not a news source, historically speaking this doesn't cut it. Therefore, I see no evidence that this truly a notable event. Tavix | Talk  19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see some contemporary news articles on the blizzard, and also some non-reliable sources that discuss it. I don't think we have the sourcing to do a proper historical account of the event, however. The tone is also a giveaway; the last paragraph discussing the aftermath notes that "The losses are expected to number..." and "Losses may reach 15,000 cattle in Colorado.", which sounds like a news article and not an encyclopedic account. If sources exist that show the event to be notable, I'm happy to revisit this one - but, even then, there would be some cleaning up to do. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - After skimming through the article and what sources there are, I've barely found any sources to speak of that seem reliable to me at least. That and the article is barely referenced at best, so I doubt that the article much going for it, at least in the state its in. - Dlrohrer  2003  02:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, there was plenty of news coverage about this. What was once notable cannot be made non-notable by the passage of time. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was never notable, it just suffered from WP:RECENTISM. Tavix | Talk  04:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's still discussed all the time in Denver.  This was very much a notable event for all who lived through it.
 * Where's your proof? Right now that statement is original research. Tavix | Talk  20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is still discussed in the area, and was very much a major event.-_MahlerFan (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus is reached for deletion, I would strongly suggest incorporating much of the material into Winter storms of 2006-07 MahlerFan --(talk) 00:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I agree with MahlerFan, this is still talked about in the area, and was significant enough to warrant a page. If this is WP:RECENTISM Tavix, there are a few more blizzard pages that should be deleted as well if you look around. Also, Tavix, your statement of 'therefore' is inappropriate, the fact that you see "no evidence" does not logically follow from the previous statements of 'historically speaking this doesn't cut it,' which, is not evidence, but just a statement in need of support, which you fail to provide. Brainerror138 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have failed to find sources that talk about this blizzard in historical context. (meaning after the blizzard actually happened). If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and find me some sources, but until then I'm sticking by my words. Tavix | Talk  20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, compared with other articles it seem pretty notable.username 1 (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Blizzards happen yearly, the difference with those blizzards is that they are well-referenced and actually notable. Tavix | Talk  20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

*Delete and merge content to Winter storms of 2006–07, which is consistent with how other winter storms are covered in Wikipedia. Plvekamp (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Neutral - After looking around the Winter storm article more, I don't believe my previous statement holds up. To judge by the organization of the winter storm articles, this one seems consistent with others. It looks like an informal consensus may exist to give major storms their own articles. I'll bow to the opinion of more experienced editors.Plvekamp (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - The article would require some work and more sourcing but it definitely had significant coverage and was definitely notable thus passes the first criteria of the general notability guidelines - just needs more sources that's it then the few currently there. -- JForget  14:15, 28 December 2009 (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.