Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severe Thundersnow Warning


 * 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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Severe Thundersnow Warning

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Term appears to have originated with a local high school meteorology club, no reliable sources, no indication of use outside the Dublin, Ohio organization.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any usage outside of a few bulletin boards. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom & Malik. But they sure put some effort into it :-) --DeVerm (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep This article pertains to a Severe Weather Alert type which is essential in protecting life/property during extreme blizzard events. --Bowser423 (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Bowser423 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Malik: What do you mean? --Bowser423 (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I think what Malik is saying is that he was unable to find any discussion of this three word topic in reliable, independent sources. I agree.  This seems to be a content fork from Thundersnow, which is clearly a notable topic. I don't see any need for a separate article on specific warning terminology unless the warning itself has significant discussion in reliable sources independent of the group that coined the term.  Malik can elaborate if he sees fit. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is of local application at best, and is possibly a hoax. Gsearch indicates, as per Malik, nothing to justify a WP article. Worth noting that the bulletin board that mentions the expression does so in a humorous way (see here). Note further that the web page of the weather group itself doesn't promote the expression. asnac (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe this term will get some use, but it's WP:TOOSOON for it to have an article right now because of the lack of coverage. (I realize this is for films and actors, but I think it applies well to this case here too). A search on weather.gov shows several mentions of Thundersnow and "Possible Thundersnow," but not "TSN-W", "Severe Thundersnow Warning", or even "Thundersnow Warning."  But who knows, maybe it'll catch on... I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Neologism. No results in .gov domain, so no official usage.- Running On Brains (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep Even if it was commonly used it wouldn't really be a good WP topic. The meaning is obvious. What would be notable is the system for giving warnings, not each warning by itself. However since the other warnings do have articles this one should too, unless someone feels like nominating them all. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Usage is not related to weather.gov or the national weather service, but rather an independent, professional, non-profit weather service known as the Dublin Coffman Weather Service. "official" is relative. It is an official term in DCWS terminology. Furthermore, Asnac has cited an incorrect webpage. The correct listing of weather alerting terminology is in the DCWS Severe Weather Glossary. The DCWS is no hoax. Citing no results on weather.gov/the .gov domain is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that weather warnings do generally get articles. I guess that could be useful. I will change my vote to keep. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Neologism developed by a localized weather club. Not documented or used by any source that meets criteria defined at WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sorry, seems like a textbook case of WP:ONEDAY.--Fbifriday (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Thundersnow


 * Update - I have put up the new recommendation that this article be merged with the pre-existing t'snow article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Thundersnow. If (and only if) the NWS picks this up as a service-wide warning would I say it should have its own article.  It's not even an experimental product yet, so I think having its own article is premature. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Delete - it's just a warning issued by a private company, who doesn't appear to be notable either.  It appears to fail WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a company. It's just a weather service. --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 02:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Isn't the text of the warning copyright? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a government-issued warning expected to be retransmitted (that's the purpose of it), so I don't see why it would be copyrighted. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not government-issued, but DCWS gives permissions for redistribution of all of its stuff as long as the header, DCIAC line, and forecaster sig are unmodified. --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 13:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh - I thought this was a warning issued by a local office of the National Weather service. Changing my vote in that case. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:45, 23 July 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.