Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Eva


 * 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 article is found to meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Storm Eva

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable storm. Aside from a few rivers bursting their banks, this storm's only claim to notability is that it was named by Met Eirann. I don't think this is enough for it to be notable and should follow suit with the rest of the non-notable storms listed at 2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season and be summarised there. See also Talk:Storm Eva  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  19:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  19:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  19:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, this storm is pretty notable, a Google News search brings up many results from a wide range of reliable sources. The storm itself has had the army called in to help (Storm Eva: Army joins the effort to protect Cumbria from more flooding - The Independent) and a COBRA meeting was called to discuss the flooding. (Storm Eva: severe flood warnings in place as rain drenches northern Britain - The Guardian "As members of the armed forces continued to assist in inundated areas of Cumbria on Christmas Day, the government’s emergency Cobra committee met and further flood warnings were issued.") One source even said it could "well shave 0.2-0.25 percentage points off GDP growth in the near term" (RSA Insurance and Aviva share prices hit as experts warn Storm Eva could knock 0.25 percentage points off UK growth - CityAM.com)  Seagull123  Φ  19:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many instances of the media wrongly attributing Storm Eva (22 Dec) to the flooding that occurred by an unnamed storm that followed afterwards (25-26 Dec). The Independent article is dated 25 Dec; the Guardian 26 Dec etc.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then there are still the news results for before the 24th. "Over 6,000 without power as Storm Eva hits", "Environment Agency warns North West to brace itself for Storm Eva" just to name a few.  Seagull123  Φ  19:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this may leave the precedent that all the storms in the season are notable enough for their own article. We will end up with many stubs. I guess if you think the flooding and power outages from this storm alone are notable for an article then fair enough.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you do a news search for Storm Barney - the first result is about Storm Frank and the second one is about why we name storms. For Storm Clodagh, the first result is the naming article and then the second one is one of a few about the storm itself. I understand that the weather from 25-26 Dec has been misnamed, but Storm Eva has still received a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. The fact that media sources have misnamed it should be put in the article, saying that the Christmas weather was misnamed and that in fact it was an unnamed storm.  Seagull123  Φ  20:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per above. Most laughable nomination I've seen in a long time, absolute nonsense nomination. Try reading the article first and doing some research on sources before erroneously tagging articles for deletion, and especially, try living through the storm yourself. Regards,  Buttons0603   &#124; talk to me &#124; 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Buttons, I would recommend you follow the discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Storm Eva.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season per nom & WP:NOTNEWS. I can't see there was anything about this particular storm that is likely to give it enduring notability, or justify lengthy enough coverage to require splitting off from that summary article. Qwfp (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There is a certain amount of crystal ball to the the naming system, as you'd expect from a warning scheme. The criteria are broadly similar to those employed by List of European windstorms where for several years we've generally added those investigated by the insurance industry aggregator Perils AG (http://www.perils.org/web/news/event-investigations.html) and only created articles for storms which have exceeded their investigation criteria, as being notable enough for an article, and as providing enough information for a decent article.Lacunae (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  Speedy keep - the storm caused significant disruption, some of which will be felt for more than a year. WP:GNG is met, article is adequately sourced to demonstrate this. Mjroots (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The last point of GNG leads onto WP:NOTNEWS which states " However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.". Considering that every source in this article is a news source (except the Met Office forecast), what are your thoughts? Do you think it is at least worthy of discussion, rather than simply speedying it?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - you were quite within your rights to nominate the article for deletion. It doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Now you've nominated it, let the discussion continue. There is no need to challenge every !vote that you disagree with. The closer will take all !votes into consideration and decide on whether or not the article is kept/deleted. Mjroots (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just very surprised that such an experienced user such as yourself supports this being speedy kept, despite policy suggesting this would be impossible.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I might have meant "snow keep", but it was late last night and the beer was starting to kick in. Have struck the speedy. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. A notable storm. Substantial article content removed a couple of days ago. Szzuk (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That content was unrelated to Eva as a storm, and related to rainfall from a front associated with another area of low pressure entirely.Lacunae (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree the content was unrelated to Eva. I read the removal rationale on the talk page and thought it was bogus. Szzuk (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Storm Eva brought gales and heavy rain on Christmas Eve with another Atlantic depression bringing heavy rain and flooding to north-west England, north Wales and parts of Scotland through 25th to 27th.".  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't mean anything. The key question is addressed in the first sentence of the delete vote directly below - I have a different view. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The key question is whether the flooding in Lancashire and Yorkshire was directly related to Storm Eva. I believe there is a strong argument that it was not. The depression named Eva passed to the north-west of the UK and Eire on the night of 23-24 December bringing a few hours of strong winds to some parts. Most of the UK then had a clear/cold night 24-25 December due to a transient ridge. The next area of low pressure (unnamed) moved in early on 25 December bringing prolonged and heavy rain to northern parts of England which was the prime trigger for the floods over Lancashire and Yorkshire. By early 26 December the depression which had been named Eva was located north of Norway as shown in the Met Office synoptic chart with only a lengthy and tentative frontal link to the weather system bringing the heavy rain to the UK at the time. Thus it is appropriate that the details of the flooding are included in the 2015–16_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods page and not a separate Storm Eva page. As others have noted, the media widely attributed the Lancashire and Yorkshire floods to Storm Eva, but the question is whether Wikipedia should reflect this misconception or correct it. I believe it should do the latter. The details of Storm Eva (e.g. power outages due to strong winds in parts of the Eire and Northern Ireland on the night of 23-24 December) can be adequately covered in the Storm Eva section of the 2015–16_UK_and_Ireland_windstorm_season page if necessary with a pointer to the 2015–16_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods page for anyone who expects to find details of Lancashire and Yorkshire floods of 25-27 December. Revelina (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * but then again, Storm Eva received a high amount of coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not the media was correct to call it Eva, there is still the coverage. I understand that it may not be correct, but we can't just say that as the media were wrong, we rule out all the incorrect sources just because we believe them to be wrong. Isn't that WP:OR?  Seagull123  Φ  18:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the media did "misrepresent" Eva. Looking back to the revision prior to trimming out post Christmas impacts, very few sources claim Eva as the cause. I think it was original research to link the flooding after Christmas to Eva in the first instance.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Original research to suggest that the post Christmas flooding was Eva? You've already said that Eva was around the 23rd to 24th and that the media had got it wrong about 25th to 27th (or words to that effect). And I could show you a whole load of media sources that would not be original research (unless sources that do their own research come under this policy now as well) that say the post Christmas floods were Eva, look here and here and here (that last one, look at the dates on the map for storm Eva). I think that even though the post Christmas floods may not have been Eva, we - as Wikipedia editors - can't just ignore them because we don't believe them to be correct. It is not our place to conduct our own research into which sources were correct, we just try and make a verifiable encyclopaedia based on the sources we have available to us.  Seagull123  Φ  19:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an important statement from that third source about the flooding "That was followed by heavy rainfall in Wales, England and parts of Scotland - but the Met Office did not specifically define this as part of Storm Eva." I'm on the opinion that our article on the December flooding does a far better job of documenting the event (including Eva and how it was involved). I see Eva rather as a part of the flooding than having any individual notability as a windstorm. The only windstorm-related event of Eva was the 6,000 people in Ireland without power. Indeed, the BBC article in questions groups all the December storms into one single article.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But still, there has been the mass of coverage from media sources which talk about Storm Eva. And I still have not seen any source that specifically says that the post Christmas weather was not part of Eva. All I've read about that has been on this discussion and on the article's talk page. The BBC source above is slightly vague - I read it to mean that the weather in Scotland and the mentioned areas experienced at the same time as the other weather was the part not part of Eva (sorry that explanation was quite vague). But why is it that you're just ignoring the sources from after the 25th, saying that that bit of weather was not part of Eva - without citing a source at all? If I could see a source that clearly explained that the secondary bits of weather were not part of Eva, and that the media got it wrong, then your claims would be verifiable. But without this, I'm just relying on your statements, that "There are many instances of the media wrongly attributing Storm Eva (22 Dec) to the flooding that occurred by an unnamed storm that followed afterwards (25-26 Dec). The Independent article is dated 25 Dec; the Guardian 26 Dec etc." Who says that the media got it wrong?  Seagull123  Φ  21:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Met Office make it clear in this particular statement in their News Release issued on 31 December:
 * "The Christmas period was also unsettled, wet and mild. Storm Eva brought gales and heavy rain on Christmas Eve with another Atlantic depression bringing heavy rain and flooding to north-west England, north Wales and parts of Scotland through 25th to 27th. Storm Frank then dominated the headlines by 30th." Revelina (talk) 22.30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

OK then, this claim has one source. But I would still say the storm's pretty notable if it could affect a country's GDP, RSA Insurance and Aviva share prices hit as experts warn Storm Eva could knock 0.25 percentage points off UK growth, wouldn't you? Or if that by news outlets, it has been listed with Storm Desmond as a major source of economic costs and damages, UK floods: Cost of Storms Eva and Desmond could top £1.5bn (the WP page at 2015–16_UK_and_Ireland_windstorm_season says that it will cost £500-£800 million - that's not non notable). Or if that it caused a COBRA meeting and the deployment of soldiers? Flood warnings as Britain is braced for torrential Boxing Day rain. This is not just a storm where there were a "few rivers bursting their banks, this storm's only claim to notability is that it was named by Met Eirann" as put it. This storm is notable, whether or not you include the post Christmas weather.  Seagull123  Φ  23:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite apparent that all of these sources are about the flooding caused by a subsequent storm, not Eva. I'd even argue that the COBRA meeting was for the subsequent flooding too (its timing lined up with the issue of weather warnings). I will admit that it does appear as though soldiers were deployed to help with Storm Eva. It makes no sense to merge a subsequent storm with Eva on this page when we have exactly that (and more) at 2015–16 Great Britain and Ireland floods. I'm very grateful for the efforts in expanding Eva, but this article can still fit comfortably as a section of 2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season without the need to split.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * but there's still all the sources from before Christmas (here) which should be talking about what you say was actually called Storm Eva. And I haven't seen proof that there were only a "few rivers bursting their banks, this storm's only claim to notability is that it was named by Met Eirann". What I've seen seems to prove otherwise.  Seagull123  Φ  18:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the media reports in this link are speculation/predictions of what Storm Eva may bring over Christmas, not actually reports of what it did bring. Given all this speculation prior to the event, it is understandable that when the floods of 25-27 December did occur they were naturally linked to Storm Eva even though they were primarily related to the subsequent low pressure system (named Daniel by FUB). Some of the pre-Christmas reports do include details of the localised flooding which occurred in the 21-23 December period in parts of Cumbria (e.g. Glenridding). This was as a result of rain from fronts associated with the complex low pressure system which FUB named Arend/Bjarni. At this time the depression which was named Eva by Met Eireann (and subsequently named Chuck by FUB) was still developing in Mid-Atlantic. Revelina (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that all of the news was wrong?  Seagull123  Φ  18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And anyway, isn't it WP policy that we listen to sources and only report what they say? "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." And the raft of sources that are on the current article (and on google) suggest otherwise. The sources provided by you are generally primary sources that say when the storm was or some weather maps of northern Europe. Which WP policy/guideline says that the news sources should be ignored because a Met Office table or a synoptic chart - which are primary sources (that require "original analysis of the primary-source material") say otherwise? Why is it our place to ignore the sources that say Storm Eva was notable - whether or not the media got the naming right - Storm Eva was all over the news around Christmas and so (I believe) we should consider the topic notable because reliable sources say otherwise. Wikipedia's place is not to disseminate new research not done by reliable, secondary sources; but to report on what those sources say.  Seagull123  Φ  19:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Met Office and Met Éireann are probably the best sources of information on this topic. The Met Office dates its impacts on UK and/or Ireland as 24 December (URL) and Met Éireann as 23 December (URL). These are both secondary sources and not taken from synoptic charts etc. I'm aware that some sources bundled the flooding caused by Eva and Daniel into one. Some sources grouped the entire December flooding into one article. Considering the close timing of the storms, would it not be better to group all the flooding into one article and simply redirect this article to there for the sake of clarity? This article ticks most of the reasons for a merger at Merging.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The answer to your question is a simple no. Articles are created and evolve for a reason, that evolution has been fundamentally altered and resulted in this AFD despite ample RS. You're trying to argue for the 'truth' of the Met office - but we don't deal in truths, only verifiability. The article should be put back as it was and then all of the inconsistencies highlighted in this afd explained in the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge - part of a long series of extreme rain and weather events over this winter. Better considered as part of the winter storms than as a separate event. Blythwood (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Whether or not individual incidents are attributable to Eva or not is a moot point and one we can hardly settle here, the event was widely reported by the UK media, any issues relating to relations with other storms should be dealt with within the article. Mtaylor848 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple independent reliable sources have written about something called "Storm Eva". That makes it notable per WP:GNG. If there is a verifiable controversy about whether the storm did or did not cause particular impacts, that would only tend to add to the notability. Thparkth (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or Wrong forum As per WP:Deletion policy, "...content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Storm Eva has been discussed in the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, and ITV News among other sources. These sources are all in the Wikipedia article. WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable because the storm was "widely reported by the UK media" as noted by Mtaylor848 so is a significant event. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2016 (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.