 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 29. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 merge to January 2011 North American blizzard. NW (Talk) 14:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Georgia Blizzard of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yes, major snow events are rare in the southern US. However, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. If an article is warranted on this snow event—and has it been called a blizzard anywhere?—it will be based on the amount of coverage of significant events in the area. (Have there been roof collapses, as there were with the blizzard of 1993?) Given that the article cites no sources whatsoever, this does not warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep over 2800 news entries in the last week....also "no sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion. CTJF83 chat 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources is a valid reason for deletion, in that it means the article fails the verifiability requirement and the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see the 2800 references I linked to above? CTJF83 chat 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources is a valid reason for deletion, in that it means the article fails the verifiability requirement and the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not temporary. Not to mention the article is poorly written. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poorly written is not a criteria for deletion and you're not reading WP:NTEMP correctly, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" (as my 2800+ references show) in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." CTJF83 chat 06:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You sources are for "georgia snow," not for the blizzard itself. The blizzard has not emerged as a discernible notable event. The media was acting like it was at the time, but they act like everything is notable. Given the media world we live in, a mere sum of articles is not a good measure of notability. As to the state of the article itself, I agree that it is not technically a reason for deletion. However, a poorly written article does cast into doubt the ability of a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic manner. An article is itself a de facto argument for the inclusion of the said article. Therefore, a bad article casts doubt onto the ability of the topic to be covered appropriately. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow is a better search term, as not everyone may call it a blizzard. CTJF83 chat 19:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You sources are for "georgia snow," not for the blizzard itself. The blizzard has not emerged as a discernible notable event. The media was acting like it was at the time, but they act like everything is notable. Given the media world we live in, a mere sum of articles is not a good measure of notability. As to the state of the article itself, I agree that it is not technically a reason for deletion. However, a poorly written article does cast into doubt the ability of a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic manner. An article is itself a de facto argument for the inclusion of the said article. Therefore, a bad article casts doubt onto the ability of the topic to be covered appropriately. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poorly written is not a criteria for deletion and you're not reading WP:NTEMP correctly, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" (as my 2800+ references show) in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." CTJF83 chat 06:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDelete - while I believe this is clearly a notable event in weather history for the United States, I think it may be prudent to wait and see if any sources start making this an event; i.e., newspapers start referring to this event as the Georgia Blizzard of 2011. Otherwise, it is arbitrarily made and could let in articles such as 'The Snow Day of November 24 for Georgia' or the 'Very Cold Day of New York City on May 25, 2011, etc. Regards, -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This one personally affected my because I was stuck in my house for 3 days but I'm not sure about whether or not this event has enduring notability. I think more discussion is needed and some sources would be nice. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not sure about this. Initially the article was written like a "news" report and wikipedia is not the news. (also see WP:EVENT). found 3 sources 1, 2, 3 and added the first to the article. Of course there's also a frakload of local news reports. Traditionally, events such as this were rare in Georgia and the southeast but source 2 concedes that they are becoming more routine. It might be possible to write a balanced "encyclopedic" article about this event so I'll go ahead and bold a weak keep for now. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Had serious implications in multiple areas throughout the country Purplebackpack89 21:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with January 2011 North American blizzard which covers the same storm over a larger geographic area. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 25 January 2011 (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.