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. There are strong policy (including notability / authority) reasons to delete - especially hot on the heels of a similar AFD on the same article barely a month ago. Indeed, the content could have been speedy-deleted as a recreation. As an aside (and not related to the close reasoning) someone *could* create a similar encyclopedic article on "TWC's winter storm designation system" or something along the lines, and it *could* be valid (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 U.S. winter storm season[edit]

2012-13 U.S. winter storm season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such thing as an official winter storm season other than to The Weather Channel. This is not recognized by the National Weather Service, and only The Weather Channel has begun naming winter storms. It is not mainstream, and it goes directly against the official governmental forecasting view that these storms should not be named. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not mind this staying, but I think it would be best to have this user spaced and wait ans see how it goes. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's be honest, if this gets deleted, people will probably just remake it. Inherently there is nothing wrong to have all this data. Really, it is just the names that are real problem since there is going to be probably more pages on Nor'Easters on Wiki now due to that naming scheme then there were previous years.--iGeMiNix 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a bad thing? The more information on Wikipedia, the better. ST✪12 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to add Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy into this article in a bit, I had to wait until I had time to get on WP to do it though. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute, Sandy was not part of the TWC naming system. Why is that there? This goes back to my point, that there could be hundreds of storms here. If you include Sandy, why not other snowstorms that don't get named by TWC? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you said in your first comment, Sandy needs to be added since it created a major winter storm impact. Did you read any of the information I provided in the link? A major winter storm is not a couple of snow flakes, it is a major storm that produces over a foot or so inches of snow over a widespread area. Sandy dumped a ton of snow in the Appalachian Mountains, Athena dumped a ton of snow throughout the northeast, and Brutus is currently bringing very large snow amounts across Montana and North Dakota. Your questions are making this winter storm naming seem a lot harder to understand than it really is. ST✪12 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you address a storm like Lake Storm "Aphid", which was not strictly a storm, was highly localized, but nevertheless was a significant snow event. It's included in the template for blizzards in the United States, but would such a storm be included here too? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That type of system is too localized, a MAJOR winter storm is something that is widespread. Plus, it was a tiny lake affect system, not major low pressure system. Again, your questions are making it a lot harder than it really is. Please, if you need questions answered, visit websites on major winter storms, or even the Weather Channel's website for that matter. ST✪12 03:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where your getting at, but this article is on what is happening right now. If you want go ahead and create about 20 or more so article on united states blizzards, be my guest. Athena and Brutus are linked here, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it. Sandy can be removed, it isn't entirely in the range of this article. Sandy should at least need to be mentioned with Athena. ST✪12 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we arguing about which storms had more snow, as if we were deciding how storms should be named or categorized? The simple answer is that we should follow the National Weather Service. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a bit of WP:CRYSTALBALLing to say that there will only be a maximum of 26 TWC-named winter storms. Maybe they'll end up with 10, maybe they'll overflow and end up with 100. There being 26 pre-assigned names means nothing; just ask Tropical Storm Zeta about that one. (And unlike hurricane naming, TWC's vague criteria and the fact that it's being used for the first time this "season" makes it even less certain.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can your prove (provide a link) for everything you just said? Thanks. ST✪12 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A link to what in particular? You can read about the WMO's naming of tropical cyclones here: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/tcp/Storm-naming.html There is a lot of information about that in various documents through the WMO if you wanted to get really, really deep into it. As for TWC's naming criteria for the storms, you can read information in various places. Jeff Masters blog is here: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2289 See the "The decision to name Athena" section. He is mentioned on TWC at times and TWC did buy WU, a site Jeff Masters co founded. But if you want something more official, see TWC's original press release: http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/why-we-name-winter-storms-20121001 The publication date changed for some reason on the article, but you can see from the comments it was published on October 2nd. You can see how the criteria is based on all sorts of things, such as expected impact, what day of the week and on air they have stated that storms are more likely to get a name if they affect a populated area as opposed to ones that do not affect a very populated area. "Therefore, naming of winter storms will be limited to no more than three days before impact to ensure there is moderate to strong confidence the system will produce significant effects on a populated area." "The process for naming a winter storm will reflect a more complete assessment of several variables that combine to produce disruptive impacts including snowfall, ice, wind and temperature. In addition, the time of day (rush hour vs. overnight) and the day of the week (weekday school and work travel vs. weekends) will be taken into consideration in the process the meteorological team will use to name storms." Reasons for naming include that it is more Tweetable. "As an example, hash tagging a storm based on its name will provide a one-stop shop to exchange all of the latest information on the impending high-impact weather system." The following statement is not turning out to be true: "Coordination and information sharing should improve between government organizations as well as the media, leading to less ambiguity and confusion when assessing big storms that affect multiple states." And the very last reason to name storms: "Finally, it might even be fun and entertaining and that in itself should breed interest from our viewing public and our digital users." Lets be honest, that is the real reason. "Coordination" may have occurred if TWC vetted this idea, but they did not and that is the problem. If everyone came together and decided to use a naming convention and then implemented it, there would be no problem, because that naming convention would have been based purely on meteorology and would have been an official method where people could understand the rational for why a storm is named, such as based on a certain expected criteria, a max snowfall, a lowest pressure, a highest wind or maybe something else. None of that happened. Christopher Hollis (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll repost what I posted there, with links to major news networks using the name Athena, along with some non major ones, and local ones:
[2] (I saw another one on CNN earlier, but I haven't been able to find it. If I see it, I'll post it) [3] [4] [5] (and now for some other sources): [6] [7] [8] and even insurance companies are catching on: [9] Also, see these links, NBC is calling it Athena. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That said, people are going to search on WP for "Winter Storm Brutus," and we need to have something for them to find. As was pointed out on the Athena talk page, we already have an example at Winter storms of 2008–09, and I recommend renaming this page along those lines. At the same time, inordinate detail must be greatly trimmed, and any mention of the TWC names as if they were legitimate must be removed. We must mention the TWC names, of course, but only in a brief pgh making clear their disputed status. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With these two edits, I have modified the article to stop implying that the privately applied names are legitimate. I stopped short of renaming it, though whether it is defined as a "winter storm season" is also attributable to no recognized weather authority, but rather to TWC. I hope this meets with approval. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the problem that the article has no chance of ever being complete. Is it going to include every storm that hits Alaska? For that matter, every single storm that produces snow? Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that completion is needed for a viable article. Only the storms that are notable (and I mean notable, not meeting some made-up criterion for snowfall) should be described. "Athena" is notable because of its human effect, derived from its proximity to Sandy. Perhaps all specifics regarding "Brutus" should be removed. But I think TWC's action, by itself, warrants the page, simply so people will have a place to go when they look to Wikipedia to answer the question, "What the heck is Winter Storm Athena?" --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every storm that TWC names. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is no longer focused on the TWC names though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then, that IMO should be changed. The media are using TWC names as well it seems. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that YE has a point (see my links above). gwickwire | Leave a message 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're making an article for every storm TWC names (which I still think we shouldn't), the title should reflect that. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We won't be making an article on every TWC storm, just the notable ones (Athena, because it was first, and others that have large impacts). gwickwire | Leave a message 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TWC is not an authority on the weather. It is a media outlet whose purpose is to make profit through advertising. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We deleted TOR:CON for the same reason, and I've seen news outlets use that occassionally for tornado risk. I think the same principle applies here. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we didn't. TOR:CON is only used by TWC. I have never seen it used in outside sources. This scheme, if that's what you want to call it, is being adopted by other news sources (see my links above) slowly but surely. Therefore, the discussion there doesn't apply. If you've seen other news outlets use TOR:CON, then please post links here so we can all see what you're talking about. Otherwise, it's apples to oranges. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was TOR:CON repudiated by relevant scientific authorities? There's another point of non-comparison. But this sub-thread is a bit of a rabbit-trail, as WP:OSE is not a valid argument in either direction. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion questions. These are just for me to see what kind of problems people are actually having with this article. For the benefit of all participating, please limit answers here to directly answering the question/s asked.

  1. Why do you say that the National Weather Service is the only source we should use for weather information? When the NWS/NHC was issuing warnings on Hurricane Sandy, every major news source said that they completely disagreed with not issuing hurricane warnings for the Northeast. Should we have trusted the NWS/NHC and not warned people about the hurricane? No, we went ahead and warned people of a hurricane, because that's what the majority of news networks were doing at the time, whereas the NWS only warned of "high winds" or (only once or twice) "hurricane 'force' winds".
  2. Why should we take the National Weather Service over many major news networks? If the names are being covered in reliable sources (major news networks), then why not call them by the names being covered? I have never once seen the name November 2012 nor'easter in the news media, or in a NWS product for that matter. People know it by Athena, as that's the only name that has been given to it. Any name we give it other than Athena borders on WP:OR, due to it being a name decided by Wikipedia editors, and not having been used by anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by gwickwire (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 November 2012

You obviously have no clue because what you stated in the first comment isn't true. It doesn't matter what news media says. And since the NHC didn't issue the hurricane warnings, the NWS issued hurricane force wind warnings for the area. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane force wind warnings are only for marine areas. They cannot be issued inland, and weren't in this case. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And replying to the second comment, the NWS is a government agency and they have a strict naming system for hurricanes that is voted on at a meeting of the WMO. All of those sources you provided mentioned do say something about it being a nor'easter. Only 3-4 say anything about Athena. United States Man (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The naming system is different between areas (West Pac, East Pac/Atl, South Atl, Indian Ocean). Look at the fact that there is not a standard definition for a "Tropical Depression" or a "Tropical Storm", as it varies between basin. All of the sources clearly call it Athena at least once. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say Athena is getting the most coverage. On Google, November 2012 New England nor'easter gets 43.9 million hits, Winter Storm Athena gets 17 million hits. So, the argument that the TWC names have already caught on is incorrect. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Google stats has no impact on this decision. For all we know, 43.899 million of those hits on the not'easter could have been to Wikipedia (when the page was named that), or to Twitter (lots probably were), or to the NWS products itself. Google is not a reliable source, and the stats have no impact. Just because it is used on more pages doesn't mean it is used by more people. (Also, this hasn't been totally proven yet, but I've found that when you leave a search term in the URL, as you inadvertantly did in the Athena search, Google will come back with less sources than others sometimes) gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, question number 1 is incorrect. The NWS specifically issued non-tropical products for the northeast so as to not confuse people. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, that caused more confusion. Look at the confusion between Chris Christie and the mayor of Atlantic City. If there were a hurricane warning, people would have left. Also, I never said why the NWS issued non-tropical products, only that they did. We reported on the non-tropical warnings, and warnings from other sources in that instance. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry, but I see no valid argument from you. Half of those sources don't say a thing about Athena, and don't try to tell me they do. And, also, the hurricane force wind warnings were issued inland for Sandy, and the naming and classifying for different basins does not have a single thing to do with this. To me you are just scaping the bottom and are trying to keep yourself from falling flat on your back. United States Man (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hurricane force wind warning is a marine product. Not issued inland. If it was, prove it. You specifically said the WMO has a set criteria for naming. I proved you wrong by bringing up the different naming schemes/scales in different parts of the world. So it does have something to do with this. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They did issue flood warnings and hurricane force wind warnings. Can you post a source for people who were advocating that they issue tropical products? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First that link. That link does nothing. That link has no products on it. It's a map with the current radar. Sorry, I found the text. Here's the areas it was issued for:
/O.NEW.KOKX.GL.W.0018.121030T0454Z-121030T2200Z/
LONG ISLAND SOUND EAST OF NEW HAVEN CT/PORT JEFFERSON NY-
LONG ISLAND SOUND WEST OF NEW HAVEN CT/PORT JEFFERSON NY-
PECONIC AND GARDINERS BAYS-
SOUTH SHORE BAYS FROM JONES INLET THROUGH SHINNECOCK BAY-
MORICHES INLET NY TO MONTAUK POINT NY OUT 20 NM-
FIRE ISLAND INLET NY TO MORICHES INLET NY OUT 20 NM-
Hmm... Those are all marine zones. So, they issued hurricane force wind warnings, but for marine areas. Not inland. Here's some links advocating for tropical products: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Also, I'm too lazy to go find the permalinks, but Jim Cantore, Jeff Masters, and many other meteorologists posted on their twitter/blogs that they disagreed with the NWS's warning strategy. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because hurricane force wind warnings aren't issued for inland areas. That's what high wind warnings are for, which they did issue. Look, you've been proven to be factually inaccurate or confused about how warnings work several times so far... if you can't come up with links, that's not going to bode well come closing time for the AfD. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You never said anything about high wind warnings. And I know they issued those. Did you even look at the links I posted? And when have I been factually inaccurate? Please tell me so I may go correct myself. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on live television (which I can't really link to), many staff meteorologists of TWC, CNN, FOX, etc. had said they wished the NHC would issue hurricane warnings. Face it, this (naming of winter storms) isn't the first time the majority of news media has gone against the NWS/NHC. Stop thinking that NWS/NHC is king. They aren't. It would be undue weight to use the other name instead of the most common covered name. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure due and undue weight refers to putting something insignificant into an article and leaving something big out. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it refers to putting weight on something that doesn't deserve it. Such as having an article that is only about the "nor'easter" when by now most, if not all, major news sources have referred to it as "Athena". We'd have 90% of an article (the naming it nor'easter) over 10% (the NWS) of the sourcing, and 10% of the article (the Athena) over 90% of the sourcing (major news). That's undue weight to the NWS. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your Question number 1, you said, "Should we have trusted the NWS/NHC and not warned people about the winds? No, we went ahead and warned people of hurricane-force winds..." The NWS did warn people of hurricane-force winds. They issued hurricane force wind warnngs for the marine areas, and high wind warnings for winds up to 75 mph for the inland areas. So I'm not understanding how you're implying that they didn't warn people of the winds and that only the media was. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I came out like that, I was thinking something totally different. I have changed the question accordingly. What I meant was, should we have warned people of an impending "high wind event"? No, we warned them of an impending hurricane. Because that's what it was, and that's what major news sources saw it as. We went against the NWS/NHC because major news sources said differently. The government is not king. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's where you're wrong... it wasn't a hurricane (at landfall). It was an post-tropical cyclone.

Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was a hurricane at landfall. I said there was an impending hurricane (up until 4 hrs before landfall it was). And news networks called it a hurricane until right before landfall, if not calling it a hurricane after landfall for some time. Don't put words into my mouth please. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an impending hurricane either. It was an impending post-tropical storm. No model had it predicted to be a hurricane at landfall, therefore, it was not an impending hurricane. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that. I am saying that the news media didn't say "Oh, a post tropical cyclone will hit the Northeast later this week." They said "A hurricane is heading for the Northeast". They called it a hurricane. Not me. I'm not disputing the models, just saying that the news media called it a hurricane. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if the media did that, they were wrong (from a purely scientific standpoint). I would argue that we shouldn't base our articles off the media if we know their claims to be scientifically wrong. And with that, I'll end this little side thread, as we seem to be approaching the subject from two different paradigms (so we're both "right" in our own paradigm), and this thread's gotten long enough. ;) Inks.LWC (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. I can't believe we're arguing about whether NWS made a mistake or not. They're scientists. We know that scientists make mistakes, because human knowledge is finite. But science is the best we've got for this kind of thing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, would it have made sense for us to go with their mistake on warnings when most major news sources still called it a hurricane (even after the NHC declared it post-trop, and after landfall)? gwickwire | Leave a message 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Your question concerns whether the scientific criteria were correctly applied in a particular situation. The question before this AfD is who defines what the scientific criteria are in the first place. The answer to that question is scientists, not the media. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hurricane naming system exists for valid scientific reasons, and the criteria for naming a storm are well-defined and rigorous. That is how scientists work. What we have here is a media corporation doling out names because it's what works best for their bottom line. That's how media moguls work. This system has been specifically repudiated by the relevant scientific authority as unwarranted. Because we are a reference for what goes on in the media, we should report these goings on. But in now way should we contribute to their legitimation in the public eye (nor, per WP:NPOV should we unduly denigrate). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, more news networks have accepted "Athena" and "Brutus" than "insert other name here" for the storms. Sorry, but more reliable sources say "Athena" and "Brutus" than "nor'easter". If reliable sources legitimize the names, then we have to go by those sources and legitimize them. Also, can you please provide links to the WMO, AMA, AMetSoc, or a notable college meteorology program saying that they are not legitimate? Because those are the relavent scientific authority as independent non-partisan organizations, not the Government of the United States (which is partisan and dependent on the government for funds). gwickwire | Leave a message 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the quantity of sources that counts, but the quality. The media is not an authoritative source when it comes to defining the criteria for naming storms, especially when they disagree with the only body of scientists that has spoken regarding the matter.
Can you please provide links to the WMO or AMetSoc or other authoritative body of meteorologists saying that the names are legitimate? If you could, I would take notice. Silence does not imply support. One body of scientists has spoken, and that's what we need to follow.
Finally, you are sorely mistaken in your insinuation that government-funded science agencies are partisan. The enormous majority of significant scientific research done in the world today is largely funded by governments. The anti-government bias you displayed with that comment is simply appalling, and I hope other editors in this discussion take notice of it. I will say no more about it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a part of the DOC, which is partisan. Run by someone appointed by the president. That's all I mean. TWC is not run by someone appointed by Obama, nor is NBC/CBS/insert other news here. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the Secretary of Commerce is far removed from the people actually generating scientific conclusions at the NWS. The latter folks are civil servants, actually prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and believe me, those laws are enforced (I am familiar with a different U.S. government science agency as part of my job). To cast aspersions on their conclusions based on their employment by the government is simply untrue and inappropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay okay. Their politics has nothing to do with it, my other point still stands. They are not the authority, the WMO/AMA/AMetSoc/some college programs are. That's why the WMO/AMA/AMetSoc exist. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not really. The job of a scientific society is mainly to provide a forum for discussion among scientists and sometimes to speak to the public on behalf of the scientific community, for example on matters of policy. Scientific societies almost never settle questions of scientific controversy, because that is not their purpose, and a word on such a controversy from a college program would just be the non-authoritative opinion of one person or group. Now a national academy will sometimes speak on behalf of the scientific community to settle a scientific controversy, but only on major issues when requested to do so by the government.
The question before this AfD is both scientific and practical, and in fact NWS is uniquely qualified to answer it. While the organizations you and I mention above have a role in determining what are appropriate scientific methods, NWS is staffed by scientists whose task is to apply scientific methods to the weather as it happens in the U.S., to provide the American people with the information they need to deal safely with the weather. Their role can be compared to that of the USGS for earthquakes and volcanoes. In the course of discharging this duty, the NWS has determined that naming tropical storms and hurricanes is useful, and that naming winter storms is not. We would do well to pay attention and respect that determination. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The NHC falls under the WMO, as shown by them submitting names for approval, retirement, etc. Other parts of NOAA/NWS fall under WMO as well. The WMO is the world's meteorological agency qualified to answer it. The NWS is only a 'part' of the WMO, the local part for the US, if you want to look at it that way. The WMO has endorsed the naming of winter storms in Europe, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same here. Again, saying the NWS is uniquely qualified is not only undue weight but also violating WP:RS as if the NWS is uniquely qualified then it cannot be substantiated by other sources. The NWS is not uniquely qualified. TWC, AccuWeather, and other agencies are staffed by meteorologists as well, and their meteorologists are certified the same way as the NWS's. Your comparison to the USGS is irrelevant, as the USGS is the only "world organization" for earthquakes, and it itself is the equivalent of the WMO. Your last sentence is saying that we should only pay attention to and respect the judgement of one organization over the major weather network in the US, and major news networks in the United States. That is not how Wikipedia runs. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to be exact, the NHC falls under NOAA, which in turn falls under the WMO. If the WMO was going to endorse the names, they would have done so by now. In Europe, the WMO (or localized divisions) name the storm themselves. They don't have a news media company naming the storms for them. That is why they haven't endorsed the naming in the United States. The TWC is not official, the WMO (per NOAA and NWS) is. The TWC naming these storms is like CBS or NBC naming the storms. Would you trust them just because they named a storm when the NWS is actually the one who is tracking and issuing warnings on the storms? I don't think you would. United States Man (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the NWS is the U.S. branch of the WMO, then why would the WMO comment on this U.S.-centric question when its U.S. branch has already done so? Your insistence that silence from any scientific organization be treated as support is bizarre.
Furthermore, your comments on WP:Undue and WP:RS are so far out in left field that I am not going to engage with them. And as for your last sentence, au contraire. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have never figured out the undue weight accusation. As well as why he insists on using these unofficial names. TWC is not official, they are news media. TWC does not forecast the weather (however they think they do), the NWS does. United States Man (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for gwickwire's question #2, a descriptive title is the best option when no authoritative proper name exists. Full stop. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Authoritative proper name... Well, considering most major news networks are using Athena/Brutus/TWC name, then I think that makes it authoritative. Or at the very least, not having the WMO/AMA/AMetSoc/college programs denouncing the names lends something to their authoritativeness.. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, silence does not imply support. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I take it that you do not object to my explanation of why November 2012 nor'easter would be the appropriate name to use if my view of the name "Athena" were to be accepted? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does a US winter storm include the ones that impact the US but are named by Berlin when they become European windstorms? I ask as you guys seem to be saying as long as its named by TWC its in.Jason Rees (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that instance, I would think we would leave it as its US name (if it got one) in the article, and by that point it would have its own longer article to explain the effects on Europe. If a European agency names a storm, it may be stronger than when it was in the US, or maybe there's a different reason for them to that TWC didn't have here. In final, if it was named by TWC, it would be included in the US article, if not, then it would have to be included in its own article. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TWC did this for publicity, can't seem to make gwickwire understand that. Since he isn't active in the project, he doesn't understand that thw NWS is the only official source regarding weather. I don't know why he insists on using something unofficial. United States Man (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, who says that it's the only official source? That seems a little bit WP:RS violationaly, as that would be saying that the NWS is the only reliable source on weather, which is absolutely not true. And how can you tell me I am not active in the project? Don't attack me, or I will not hesitate to get an admin involved. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, USM, I think you went a bit overboard there on a couple points. Firstly, please address the edits, not the editor. I recommend you add a strikethrough to your comments from "Since" to "thw". Secondly, other official sources regarding weather exist, such as AMetSoc and scientific and forecasting bodies in other countries. On the other hand, NWS is both the primary scientific body with boots on the ground regarding U.S. weather, and the only scientific authority that has actually spoken to the question at hand. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the backup on the attacky thing up there first of all. :) Second of all, I'd trust a society of "registered" or "licensed" (depending on organization) meteoroligists more than I'd trust meteorologists from a naturally partisan organization (NWS) that the meteorologists are paid to work for. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am, again, completely boggled that you refer to the NWS as "naturally partisan". These are civil servants, not political appointees. What evidence do you have that they have ever behaved other than as responsible scientists? And what do you mean by "partisan"? Do you mean Democrat/Republican in some way, or somehow anti-media? I just don't get it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to this above. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gwickwire, a majority of the media is not calling these storms by name. You keep saying that as if it were the truth. It is not. Aside from TWC, I have seen nothing on television that calls it by its name. The names are not broadly displayed on major news websites. I did see some local media stations poking fun at the naming system from clips online, but no one simply calling it by name. People are not taking the names seriously. The links you posted were not the main articles for these storms on those websites. The main articles did not contain a name at all, they said nor-easter. A single mention in passing on some other part of the site, more bloggish in nature, is not a majority of the media calling it by a name. Please do not rename the article again. The meteorlogical community is very, very against a single private company naming these storms. If the names were picked up by the media broadly, then we would have something to talk about, but they are not. Also, The Weather Channel, NBC, Weather Underground and Comcast are all the same thing. Any NBC stations may also be under the same influence, though I really have not seen it yet. The NBC video clip reported that TWC was going to start naming winter storms. NBC owns TWC. That is not neutral. But even NBC as a whole did not call this storm by a name. It was relegated to a few mentions online. This should be speedily changed back relegating any names to a minor blurb at best. Wikipedia can't choose to go with one single private company over the the government and the rest of the meteorological community. The names are not being picked up by the major media so it's insane that this is still an issue. TWC is confusing people and that extends to another new product they have. TWC actually has a new product called a "Winter Weather Watch". There are official NWS products called "winter storm watch" and "winter storm warning", but TWC felt the need to create a new product called "Winter Weather Watch". How confusing is that for people? See TWC video here: as. Not inland. Here's some link They have their own confusing tropical versions too which I didn't realize TWC was actually calling those an actual product. The NWS is tasked with providing official watches and warnings. That is simply the way it is. Nothing else is official. However, that doesn't mean you can't have other organizations provide weather coverage. For coordination however, you have one official agency which everyone else recognizes. And now you are attacking the NWS... Christopher Hollis (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you have no authority to tell me not to rename the storms. Second of all, their "Winter Weather Watch" is not a product, its a graphic showing their viewers where impacts (snow/rain/wind) are going to be. Not an actual text product emitted. Who tasks the NWS with official warnings? Can you post me a link to a law governing that? No, because one doesn't exist. You saying nothing else is official violates WP:RS, that states it must be covered in multiple verifiable sources. If the NWS is the only official source, then there cannot be another reliable source, and it fails RS. Wikipedia considers the official topic to be the one most reliably covered in the most news sources. I'd also like to add that you may have a conflict of intrest here, if you happen to be the same Christopher Hollis that runs tropicalatlantic.com. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
gwickwire, I don't make money from tropicalatlantic.com. It is a non profit site. (Though admittedly, I speak with a lot of people in the government, NWS/NOAA, Air Force, Navy, etc and also in the news media.) I'm not even really against naming winter storms necessarily, although I don't think it is necessary. However, that is my opinion and does not matter in terms of this discussion. To be fair, I don't know if you work for TWC or not, but even that would not matter. The facts are that this is not an official naming convention and that major news outlets are not using the names. Only NBC, which owns TWC, has a mention on its site more prominent than I have seen from anyone else. (still not the headline though) And I have still not seen anything on television talk about the storms having a name, other than TWC. You just attacked the NWS and you think I am the one with a conflict of interest? You just said this: "Second of all, I'd trust a society of 'registered' or 'licensed' (depending on organization) meteoroligists more than I'd trust meteorologists from a naturally partisan organization (NWS) that the meteorologists are paid to work for." How does that statement help. Lets stick to the facts. Are the names prominent out there in the media? The answer is no. That should be the basis of whether TWC's list of names is at the forefront or if we go with how Wikipedia has done it in the past. Lets stick to that please and not get sidetracked. Christopher Hollis (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never once attacked the NWS. Don't say I have. When I say naturally partisan I mean that they are paid to work for a government. Governments are partisan by nature. Honestly, NBC has one of the least prominent mentions of this name that I have seen. Please take a look at my links again, because all of them mention Athena as the name of the storm. I haven't even gone into my list of links about Brutus in the media. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your statement to be an attack, but that is my opinion. Others can judge it how they may. In case you don't know, NOAA/NWS is part of the DOC. Here is your source and it is all over the web if you need additional verification: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title15/USCODE-2010-title15-chap9-sec313/content-detail.html Some of what I posted got messed up when I tried to post a link. Let me try again. Here is a video where TWC actually called the "Winter Weather Watch" a product: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1496007759001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAAQxtuk~,N9g8AOtC12eDhj9Li1v3hu9fCeX8Osz7&bctid=1910489053001 I am big on sourcing things. Christopher Hollis (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent). In case you don't know, the DOC is part of the government. They aren't using the word product like that. I could say that CNN has an election calculator product on their website, does that mean I'm trying to undermine the authority of the government to determine the electoral calculations? No. Your website provides a product, which in your case is information on tropical systems. TWC provides a product, which is a graphic showing the areas to be affected by a storm. They are not trying to undermine the NWS, or else they would stop using NWS WWAs (Watches, Warnings, Advisories) on air, and issue their own WWAs. They don't. They just take NWS info and supplement it by creating a graphic out of the impact. What's wrong with that? gwickwire | Leave a message 01:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The naming of winter storms is confusing some people. I was even just reading an article about whether this will mean people will have higher deductibles because there is a "name" attached to the storm. It appears that most all policies are written so that the government has to name the storms, not TWC. In addition, some of the products TWC is coming out with are very near the name of official watches. Which is the real watch? "winter storm watch" or "winter weather watch"? Most people will be confused. This is why Wikipedia should go with what is official. A private company is confusing things and this could be reduced in part if Wikipedia went with how it has always been done. Search for "winter storm athena" on Google and you will see most of the results are from TWC/WU or have to clarify that it is TWC who named the storm. Christopher Hollis (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just agree to disagree on this, because this doesn't really relate to the deletion of the article, just the way Wikipedia will name storms :) gwickwire | Leave a message 01:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is related. How Wikipedia names these storms has much to do with if this page should exist. This page is framed completely around TWC's naming of storms. TWC is a private agency and has not coordinated with the government or other organizations before moving ahead on this. Although that is one point, the other and perhaps equally important point in terms of Wikipedia is that the names are not widely used. In this particular instance, I think Wikipedia should wait to see if the names become broadly used in the media before naming articles after TWC's names and beforing framing an article around the names like this one does. This is better than going ahead and naming the articles after TWC's names and having this page framed completely around that while waiting to see if the names are broadly used by the media. This page should be created only if the names are broadly used and not before then. By broadly, I mean most major news organizations, excluding NBC, use TWC's name when they describe a storm and having it be on such things as the front page of major news sites and on the national news on the broadcast networks. This is a major change that TWC has tried to implement on their own and Wikipedia should take a wait and see approach before using TWC's names or having a page which is framed around those names. Because this is a major change, I strongly believe that is the best course of action especially considering the NWS is not using the names. But yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Christopher Hollis (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Would it be possible to keep the article but drop the names? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, how would you determine what you would keep? Would it include every storm that affects Alaska? Every storm that drops snow in the country? That is an impossible list to finish, not to mention be unencyclopediac. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed earlier, we would only include ones with significant impacts, not just every storm system. The lack of naming isn't a problem with the annual tornado articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a database that keeps track of tornadoes. There isn't such a database for snow storms, if we included every storm that dropped any amount of snow. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If keeping the article is dependent on keeping the names then I would opt for deleting it. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TornadoLGS on the matter. United States Man (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, since there is only 26 names on the list, it obviously doesn't include systems that are tiny and insignificant. Tornadoes for that matter number in the thousands each year, only destructive ones earn names of the area they decimate, such as "Joplin". A MAJOR winter storm, for the last time, is a very large, significant system that causes regional impacts. It doesn't include every storm that dumps any amount of snow. Please educate yourself on what a MAJOR winter storm really is. ST✪12 16:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are very wrong in stating that tornadoes get a name. In no way, shape, or form does a tornado get any kind of name. A major winter storm could dump 4 feet of snow in Alaska and would not get named. Your argument is invalid, because for one: TWC is unofficial, and two: if the NWS were naming these systems (which will never happen) then even systems in Alaska would get named. It wouldn't just be systems that affect a major city. United States Man (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that Anchorage isn't a major city? It's a pretty major city in my book. Also, tornadoes do get a name. "Joplin Tornado", "Birmingham Tornado", and "Tri-state Tornado" are just a few examples. Alaska is used to getting a snowstorm at certain times, and buildings, roads, and travel networks are built to withstand this. The Northeast is not built to withstand snowstorms. In this way, a snowstorm in the Northeast, or even Montana, would be more damaging than one in Anchorage or another part of Alaska. Don't speculate on why the NWS isn't naming this, or if they won't. Way back when, the NWS didn't name hurricanes (other than numbers), and now they do. Things change. You can't stop it, you just roll with it (for lack of a better term). gwickwire | Leave a message 16:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they were going to name the storms, they wouldn't have denounced the names. And as for the tornadoes, I was thinking about actual names (such as hurricane names). United States Man (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent). Before the advent of hurricane names, the NHC denounced others giving unofficial names to hurricanes. I understand the tornado name issue, but still. The NWS has taken on those names after they are given by news media. I see no definite reason they won't eventually do the same here (other than previous denouncement). It's happened before. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said it, unofficial. The names of hurricanes were unofficial just as the winter storm names are unofficial. The NWS will not use these names because they have already been denounced. It they did name these storms then these names would not be used. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the NHC now gives names to hurricanes. And also, they are using unofficial names given first by media. "San Ciricao Hurricane" (sp), "Galveston Hurricane", "Cyclone Catarina" are just some examples. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that is beside the point that the NWS has expressed its disapproval of the names in question here. If the NWS decides to recognize the TWC names in the future, then we can make the appropriate changes on Wikipedia, and I'd say that's a pretty big if. Until such time we should not follow TWC on this matter, and redirects and mentions of the names will suffice. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer this: Why is the NWS above multiple reputable news sources, independant/private meteorologists, and other sources of information? That's undue weight at its worst. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that use of these names is widespread is also being challenged. From what I've been able to see the articles you link to are minor ones, not major broadcasts, even if they are in some way affiliated with major networks. Additionally, many of the articles you link to simply mention that TWC is naming the systems rather than referring to them by these names. Such articles as those don't really add support to the names as this move on the part of TWC is newsworthy regardless of whether the names are valid. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wah? I linked like every word up there to a link. Then it told me to fix the links, so I did, and it took them out. Welp, tomorrow I will come back with links. Sorry! gwickwire | Leave a message 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your grounds for a strong keep are? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NWS and NHC are branches of an official administration and have well-recognized authority. TWC is a commercial enterprise with no real authority beyond its subsidiaries. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:29, 13 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.
Category