Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm naming controversy


 * 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. without prejudice to a rename.  MBisanz  talk 00:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Storm naming controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A two senetence stub with no indication of importance whatsoever. United States Man (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs a stand alone article as a controversy between the Weather Channel and other weather services that oppose and support it. It is in the news, has subsantial coverage, RS, etc, etc. More material is being added.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is fairly new, can we atleast wait a little bit?  Jay Jay What did I do? 18:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This actully has become quite controversal and I do believe the article has potential to grow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic it covers has had a lot of attention recently and should be kept. Camyoung54   talk  18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into The Weather Channel. The controversy seems pretty notable, with multiple organizations publicly opposing TWC's system and plenty of reporting on that. But I don't think it needs to be covered outside of TWC's page, unless other organizations start actively supporting TWC's position (rather than just using the names on occasion), which doesn't seem to have happened. (Keep wouldn't be too bad either, which is where this seems to be headed at the moment.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Expand or delete. It'd be interesting to read about the pros and cons being presented, but unless there's more than a list of organizations that agree/disagree, this is fairly useless.  Has the NWS made any statements, or have they just ignored the whole thing? 173.65.73.222 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * During Athena they sent out a bulletin to their offices telling them not to refer to it as "Athena." Other than that it has been ignored by the NWS. United States Man (talk)
 * It probably will expand. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricanes/tropical storm naming came about for the same reasons TWC wants them named. See: this link that states "Tropical cyclones are named to provide ease of communication between forecasters and the general public regarding forecasts, watches, and warnings." Even if TWC doesn't maintain the right to name them, it may still carry on to the NWS which opposes it now, and may yet do a Reverse Ferret--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a point, TWC has the right to do whatever the @#!*%  they want regarding anything. TWC could even start naming tropical cyclones themselves, but that'd just be stupid so they don't.  gwickwire  talk edits 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This'll be a pretty big controversy by next season, and already is. Assuming TWC continues, this'll gradually get bigger (think way back when with cyclone naming). It's notable in many reliable sources. gwickwire  talk edits 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly the consensus is keep, and it seems like too new an article to delete. But its current state is unacceptable. It talks about Athena and then mentions hashtag use of #nemo on Twitter. (#NotVerifiedOrNotable) As with all articles about controversies, the bar is higher than usual, although there are some good sources listed. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The hash tags on Twitter and other uses were one of TWC's reasons for naming them. Simplicity, communication, information, awareness, etc. The source, Time Magazine, verified how often it was used. Close to 200 times in 10 minutes when they counted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep'. There's plenty of discussion in multiple sources. While the article still needs quite a cleanup, don't demolish the house while it's still being built. --  YPN YPN   ✡  02:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge; this shouldn't be outright deleted, as it is a notable dispute between TWC and other outlets. Many sources on this issue. 331dot (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am strongly against having the named storms as the page names on Wikipedia, but as for an entry about the controversy, I think there are enough articles where the topic has become notable enough to have its own page and can be linked from some of the more notable storms where one of TWC names has actually been used by some notable sources. Locally in the northeast, and even quite a bit of coverage online, Nemo seems to have been used more so than any storm TWC has named previously. Perhaps it was because it is so short and so easy to make fun of, but regardless a lot of notable organizations used it. Trending on Twitter does not count toward being a notable source, though to be fair to the issue it is worth mentioning in this article as evidence that at least some of the public was going along with it. The name was still not widely used among notable sources as even NBC, which is owned by the same company as TWC, was still not using the name on the NBC Nightly News. (On the graphics shown on that program, where TWC would normally add the storm name, the name was notably missing.) Other television programs did not seem to be using it nationally, but I'm not sure about locally. (I saw some of the newspapers in the NE did use the name.) Therefore, I believe you could have an article about the naming controversy, especially if it went into more depth about other attempts to name storms, not just by the TWC, and expanded further. This would save space in the articles about major winter storms, where a name like Nemo is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. We do not need a really long discussion every time about the naming. A link to the entry on the controversy would be good so that the information could be centralized in one place and expanded with additional information depending on how the debate continues. However, perhaps the article could be called something like: "United States winter storm naming controversy" or however that should be styled. (U.S.) The storms are named by TWC based on the impacts to the US (and whatever arbitrary methods they use, but that is another topic) and unless this article covers other winter storm naming controversies worldwide, which I know nothing about, I think the name should reflect the US. (Yes, some in Canada might use the name, but the naming is US oriented.) I do not think TWC should be in the name of the article because other entities unofficially name storms as well and I think those should be mentioned in this article as well as that goes back for many years as TWC's effort, though more widely covered, is new. Once you have more of that in depth info, I think this article would be good, with a possible rename. Christopher Hollis (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete too trivial, localized, and temporary LaBernardFox7778 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:RECENTISM may apply here, but this controversy is getting covered in major news sources. Seems to be a notable controversy. I wouldn't oppose merging it with the The Weather Channel article, which is another option.-- xanchester  (t)  06:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to The Weather Channel. The article is largely redundant to that section, and there is absolutely no reason why there should be a separate article for this topic. Reywas92 Talk 07:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but move. The title of this page does not seem appropriate. It has now been redirected to Winter storm naming controversy, but should be moved to Winter storm naming to reflect the page Tropical cyclone naming. By doing so, the page should focus on the naming of winter storms (which could be applicable worldwide) and in that scope cover TWC's practice in brief (with a link to TWC's Wikipdia page, where the bulk of the "controversy" coverage can stay), the history of suggesting naming winter storms, and opposition to naming storms (maybe in the form of a section called "Positions" with 1-2 sentences/quotes from noteworthy meteorological agencies & press for/against). AHeneen (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article tile could probably use tweaking, yes. Hurricane Bawbag briefly had a section, but was removed because there was no RS that it was controversial. Something like 'Storm naming policy' may be the eventual title. This seems to be turning into a pissing match between TWC, NWS, and other weather services. The issue will ramp up as more storms are named and those names used by the general public. The NWS seems to strongly dismiss naming smaller storms but may lose out to democracy and public outcry. Policy may be passed in the future to decide who actually has authority to name smaller storms. I doubt naming will cease, just move forward to consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested above. The article's current scope simply cannot be expanded much further, and due to the nature of the controversy, it belongs better in The Weather Channel. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 08:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Weather Channel. This seems to fit best there at this time. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Weather Channel and/or February 2013 nor'easter, both of which mention this story. But it isn't really notable enough for its own article. Robofish (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a continuing controversy not limited to the most recent storm. —Lowellian (reply) 19:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but expand - The controversy behind the topic has become widely reported on by media outlets as a significant issue extending beyond the meteorological community. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Weather Channel. There is no need for a separate article - it's a short little stub that logically fits within the TWC article. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to Winter storm naming as suggested above. This is not confined to The Weather Channel's actions but eventually will involve the court of public opinion or be decided by other means. It's not just up to The Weather Channel. --Star767 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regardless of what's done, this is correct, as the current title is misleading. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like there are enough sources to indicate notability, just saw this one a minute ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to Winter storm naming so that it can cover not only any controversy but history of winter storm naming as well. Should not be merged into any one storm article or the article of any one weather service because it's not limited to those. --PatrickD (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be room for growth, and the article has credible references. Cocoaguy ここがいい 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. A section about a name change has been created at the article talk page. I don't think we need to re-name it until this AfD runs its course though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge I think the information is valuable, though unless there is more room for expansion, it should be part of Winter storm naming. Charlesblack 13:00, 14 February 2013
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 February 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.