Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2010 Minnesota-Wisconsin Flood


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

September 2010 Minnesota-Wisconsin Flood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Meager stub on non-notable weather event. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Most floods, as with most snowstorms, forest fires or days with high winds, wouldn't pass WP:EVENT. Mandsford 20:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 *  Neutral  I disagree with Mandsford's broad statement. It the present time, the article shows little independent national-level coverage. If this is all that can be found then it should be deleted. However, I think there's great potential on this article which hasn't been tapped. The main author hasn't been notified to be given a chance to rectify, so I'll contact him/her. Record flooding in an area probably means it's notable long term because it would have caused notable events.  Royal broil  13:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and struck previous neutral. There is plenty of reliable sources of various types. Good job, Orlady!  Royal broil  05:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This was an unusual flooding event that caused significant disruption in the region and is a source of some scientific interest. I've added two sources (and some more sourced information) to the article. More sources exist. The brief and vague nature of the article should not be misinterpreted as indicating nonnotability. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources you added are primary and constitute Original Research, please read WP:PSTS. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:PSTS and tell us what you believe it means. Most people wouldn't consider reports from the National Weather Service and the University of Minnesota to be original research.  Mandsford 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course report on the event from the National Weather Service is primary. The report on the weather event from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group reads like a primary source. It says that the rain was the heaviest since 2007, hardly a marker of notability. None of the sources in the article or that I found say anything more than "it rained a lot". According to the WP:Notability (events) guideline, an event is notable if it has Lasting Effects, Geographical Scope, Depth of Coverage, Duration of Coverage, Diversity of Sources and not Routine Coverage. This event fails all these tests. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A personal journal written by the storm would be a primary source, but storms can't keep personal journals. Records from river gauges and eyewitness accounts by residents of flooded areas would also be primary sources. A retrospective synopsis of the storm by the National Weather Service, written sometime after the storm ended, is not a primary source. Similarly, a retrospective analysis by a state climatology office is not a primary source. And, yes, the state report does say that this was the "largest flood event to hit southern Minnesota since" 2007, but it also says that an area of more than 5000 square miles received rainfall in excess of the 100-year-event and that it was the only time on record (i.e., since 1893) that the Mississippi River exceeded flood stage in autumn. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC) And for what it's worth, that 2007 flooding event to which this is compared was a major flooding event that has a thorough article: 2007 Midwest flooding. --Orlady (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * People who consider the National Weather Service and state climatology offices to be too closely associated with the topic of weather might be relieved to know that the article now also cites the Associated Press (as published by Fox News) as a source. --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the storm had national coverage and was in many newspapers-thank you-RFD (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2011 (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.