Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold 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. GNG appears to be clearly met. There is not enough support for a NOTNEWS deletion seems like. Mergers and name changes can still be discussed on the talk page, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

January 2017 European cold wave

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt this is a notable event. Checklist:

Lasting effects ❌ None.

Geographical scope ✅ That's fulfilled.

Depth of coverage ❌ We don't have an in-depth review so far. Only some short news article.

Duration of coverage ❌ Very short duration of coverage, because it's nothing special.

Diversity of sources ✅ Well, seems to be fulfilled, although we only have news reports so far. No text books. No scientific articles.

On the other side, this event can be best described as Routine coverage. It's winter. Temperatures drop. That's how it has been for years. Furthermore, Sensationalism may also be the reason for some of the news reports.

All in all, we have more reasons for deleting this article than for keeping it. TheRandomIP (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This was closed and that close overturned at DRV. Therefore relisted to allow a full discussion period. (Brrr its cold in my office) Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the future, please do not adorn your Afd nominations or comments with label templates, per WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This certainly goes way beyond "Its winter, let's post some pictures of snow in the Daily Mail" coverage. Snow and severe temperatures in places, that do not usually see those iE first snow in 25 years where the last flurry only lasted 30 minutes. Agathoclea (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into Winter where it merits a brief entry. As a free-standing article, it is unsatisfactory because it is ill-defined.  Right now, it's still January and it's cold here in London.  The newspapers are full of reports about freezing fog, airport closures, inversions, &c.  Is this part of the supposed phenomenon or not?  How do we tell when this stops being something special and starts being the usual winter weather?  The atmosphere is turbulent and chaotic so the news media always have something to say about it every day.  Either we should have some broadbrush coverage such as a European equivalent of 2016–17 North American winter or we should stick to clearly named local phenomena like Hurricane Andrew. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources show that this was not a routine winter event. "Europe's coldest weather in years...";the lowest temperatures for decades in some parts...";  "death and chaos across Europe..."; etc.  Reported worldwide.   "Still cold here in London" is irrelevant - the article does not describe that, it covers the highly unusual polar air mass ("cold wave") over continental eastern and southern Europe, several hundred miles at least from London, earlier in the month.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * London is a notorious example in such cases. But London is in Europe and it's cold and it's January so this fits all the parameters of the page title.  If this isn't valid, then what are the exact parameters then?  When did this thing start and when did it finish?  The article currently gives a start date of 5 Jan but note that this is cited to a forecast and the source seems to be a blog.  And there is no stated end-date.  Ghmyrtle cites the Guardian as a source but note that the Guardian had another similar story this morning.  This says, "A new bout of cold weather across southern Europe ...".  So is this the same topic or a new one?  Are we going to have a new page every time the Guardian reports the weather somewhere?  Please could Ghmyrtle or someone provide a clear definition of what the topic is so that we may understand what we are debating.  This should please include an authoritative source which supports the definition, not just a newspaper report. Andrew D. (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the article needs to be improved. If the title is insufficiently precise, it could be moved.  Any suggestions?   This report of the "polar spell [that] gripped a large swathe of the continent" says that the extreme cold was forecast to abate later in that week (of 11 January), and there seems little suggestion that it is continuing now to the same degree.  But all that is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep sufficient non-routine coverage exists. The article can be renamed if necessary, but it should not be deleted. Lepricavark (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, it clearly seems The question is whether it meets GNG as a bona fide member of Category:Cold waves in Europe and other such categories. Plus, the colourfully adorned nomination rationale that this cold wave needs to and fails to have "Lasting effects" is not policy. I daresay no single weather event ever does. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed my !keep vote because we do need to be on guard against WP:NOTNEWS, and I'll leave it to others to decide if it passes that threshold. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The cold wave broke several temperature records as mentioned above and in the article itself, and it did have severe impacts which were reported on worldwide (UK, Singapore, Malaysia, India), especially on migrants and refugees living in camps. These effects can certainly be elaborated upon; a simple search shows the word "refugee" occurs zero times and "migrant" occurs five times in the article. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR This is from my !vote at DRV.  "The close has elements of both SNOW and SK, and the remedy is to overturn the SNOW part of the close.  The closer reasonably cites WP:POINT given that the nominator can't decide if the topic fails notability, and is using the AfD process to get assistance from the community to help him decide.  WP:NPASR allows the nominator the opportunity to review the deficiencies in the nomination, and if re-nominating, to correct those deficiencies."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Keiiri (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This cold wave was exceptionally severe, and I think it's worth a special entry. I live in a Mediterranean country, and I don't remember something like this, at least for the last 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1803:3100:3DBD:FD19:F757:195A (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: the article meets the general notability guidelines and the coldwave was big news in Hellas where such weather phenomena had not been seen for 30-40 years. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 09:53, 2 February 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.