Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2013 Great Plains 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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 12:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Great Plains blizzard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. While October snowstorms are not extremely common, they are definitely not unheard of. The deaths related to the storm were all from a single traffic accident, and other than breaking a few local snowfall records (which are not notable on their own and not notable here in the aggregate, as I have not found anything indicting widespread record-breaking) here was nothing unique about this system. The article is merely a two-sentence stub with an infobox that does not indicate how this storm was anything more special than a typical snow-storm. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I disagree with the notion to delete this article. While yes, it is true that October snowstorms are not uncommon across the United States, ones of this magnitude are. Totals are measured by the feet in much of southwestern South Dakota; winds gusted to near hurricane force. Dozens of residents were stranded on the road, thousands upon thousands remain without power to this day. In addition, this same storm complex spawned a tornado outbreak farther west. A tornado passed through Wayne, Nebraska, and was rated an EF4, one of a handful of such caliber in October. Yesterday, flash flooding became an issue across Kentucky. Over a dozen water rescues were necessary and hundreds needed assistance. As for the shape of article, I'm truly sorry. I created this article but haven't had a good deal of time to sit down and edit yet. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: per criteria of nom. Praemonitus (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: since the name Atlas is mentioned in the article, I want to leave these two prior AFDs here Articles for deletion/2012-13 United States winter storm season, Articles for deletion/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season, relating to Weather Channel-named storms. Chris857 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, it snowed close to 3 feet deep and the wind blew hard in the north central US, and it got a bit of coverage in one news cycle. Pretty routine and run of the mill. We do not create articles every time some record for the earliest/latest snowstorm occurs somewhere. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Edison (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment (2.5 feet Noreaster on the east coast would be an article no matter time of year. And they are not that rare.) Are there weather notability guidelines or essays? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Inks.LWC . An uncommon but not rare event; of only passing interest outside of the affected area.--Larry (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per TA. Honestly, plenty of TC articles are less notable than this. 2.5 snow is reasonably significant. At least give it a chance to grow, if it's a blank template liek it is now in a month, I'd consider deleting. YE Pacific  Hurricane 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the same storm that hit Oregon earlier last week and is moving across the country. ‘Atmospheric River’ Smashes Records in Pacific Northwest. If the article is kept it should be as a single storm covering all impacts not just the Great Plains. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Move Given the flooding and the small tornado outbreak, I might consider that this is more than just a blizzard article. Any of these effects on their own would likely not be notable, but on a whole, as an effect of the system, it might be worth something. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep One area on Wkipedia where articles will be sourced and improved and maintained. This AfD wastes time, imo. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Keep or Move to October 2013 North American blizzard and tornado outbreak – Holding TAWX to his word that he'll expand the article. This is a historic blizzard for the region, with accumulations reaching a record-breaking 58 inches in South Dakota (if I remember correctly, this is greatest single-storm total for the state during any month). While the blizzard is the most prominent feature of the storm system, on the other side there were the destructive tornadoes that warrant mention (hence the optional move). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking perhaps October 2013 North American storm complex due to the flooding. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cyclonebiskit. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this point, I think it would be best to withdraw the AfD nomination. When I nominated the article, it was not my understanding that TropicalAnalystwx13 intended to turn this article into an article on the whole system, rather than just keeping it about the winter storm (as the name implied).  As a winter storm, I absolutely stand by my original statements: the snowstorm was not worthy of an article.  In the aggregate as a system, looking at it from the snowstorm and thunderstorms it produced, I think it is noteworthy.  I agree with TornadoLGS and think a good name for it would be October 2013 North American storm complex. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not worthy of an article until it gets coverage in sources that are independent of the subject — including chronologically independent.  We can break the requirement for independent sources with extraordinary events (imagine a repeat of September 11, for example), but a blizzard that's not even in the headlines in Ohio (where I am right now, with newspapers) is not the kind of extraordinary event that warrants an article right now.  Wait until it gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until news sources speak of it in the past tense rather than speaking of it as news.  Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Wincent77 (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep See The Blizzard that Never Was – and its Aftermath on Cattle and Ranchers for commentary regarding coverage. The article should reflect the record-breaking impact on South Dakota. Great cattle-killing blizzards such as the Great blizzard of 1886, which we also have no article for are significant in the Great Plains, see The Winter of 1886 - 87 in Montana. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now The Wall Street Journal and Grist Las Angeles Times. I think this can be closed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree the cattle incident has moved it into notable territory (though not for the cows alone). I still believe the storm system should be looked at as a whole since it also caused record breaking weather elsewhere in the country, not just the Great Plains. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – But that doesn't mean as is. It needs a whole lot of expansion. United States Man (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant and heavy early-season snowstorm. Article just needs to be expanded.  Dough 48  72  03:32, 14 October 2013 (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.