Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Storm Brutus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is not well sourced, the storm wasn't notable, and the name has the same problem as the former Winter Storm Athena article. United States Man (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Another thing, this was created by an editor with a history of unconstructive edits. United States Man (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just my opinion, don't want to rehash this issue here. Also, the article has enough sourcing to meet RS, and in my opinion can be expanded upon. The storm is notable in that it dumped a 'ton' persay of snow over the northwest. Also, what support do you have for these "unconstructive" edits? Also, USM, I'd strongly reccommend you read the rollback policy as you have used it incorrectly a few times now. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did not misuse rollback, this storm is not notable, the article cannot be expanded, and I noticed that you saw this page and then sourced everything on the page. You are not fooling anyone. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what's wrong with me improving the sourcing to keep it? There's no fooling involved. I could take that as a personal attack, which I almost do. You did misuse rollback, but this is not the place for that. The article can be expanded. I'll get around to that when I can stop arguing about deletion/rollback. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the main season article was deleted, and secondly, there isn't any notability established. 24 inches of snow in Montana isn't that uncommon. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it also brought the first snow to Chicago since March 4! That's gotta be notable, right? :) --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with Hurricanehink. This does not seem to be a particularly notable event. And I thought it had already been decided that we would not use TWC's naming system. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on my watchlist where this page has already been deleted (it was at 00:18 on November 16) by User:DeltaQuad. So this (although I didn't see the first page) is probably a copy of the original. United States Man (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a notable storm. Sure it made a few papers, but it's not notable overall. If we put in every snowstorm that dropped a few inches of snow, our meteorology articles would be a mess. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ROUTINE are what you're thinking of. postdlf (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly - thank you for summarizing what I was trying to say. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per gwickwire. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only ROUTINE, but just not unusual that there's lots of snow in Montana in November. Also uncomfortable using storm names unsanctioned by a national/regional meteorological agency. Nate • (chatter) 07:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ROUTINE. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should think there is enough precedent and consensus by now to speedily reverse any language that treats the TWC names as normative or legitimate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the article has been deleted, it should be recreated as a redirect to The Weather Channel#2012 naming winter storms. In this way, when uninformed members of the public search on "Winter Storm Brutus" to find out what is going on, we'll have a place for them to go. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Also as above. Ham tech person 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's going on here? Things look like they're leaning in favor of deletion, bu no new posts have been made for a few days. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the AFD has at least 2 more days. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.