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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning strikes of 2022[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A list of rather random, mainly non-notable examples of common events. While, according to the lead, about 2,000 people each year die of lightning, 7 of the 10 first entries don't even have that impact and just have some injuries. Inclusion criteria for this list don't seem to exist, and even restricting it to strikes resulting in deaths would create a very long list. The most recent entry, "A lightning bolt hit an elderly man causing heart arrythmia." is rather typical of the whole, where probably only the second entry (Congo, 26 deaths) could truly be a notable event beyond the WP:NOTNEWS cycle. Basically a list of trivial news stories with one common (in both meanings) element. Fram (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article was (and still is being) created as a way to expand the yearly weather articles. Similar process to how I expanded Weather of 2022 timeline with any fatality. The “inclusion criteria” was any injury or fatality reported, which surprisingly, injuries and fatalities aren’t reported often by government organizations. For example, the European Severe Storms Laboratory, which has an entire severe weather database for all of Europe, did not record a single lightning injury or fatality in February or March 2022. The lead is also using sources from over a decade ago, so information is most likely outdated or estimated. I highly oppose full deletion and as the article’s creator, will be getting it refunded if it somehow is deleted. If you editors think it has no “inclusion criteria”, which is does, but if you don’t believe so, the inclusion criteria can be only fatalities (similar to the Weather of 2022 timeline, which no one has an issue with and numerous discussions created that inclusion criteria. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the vast majority of lightning strikes with fatalities are ignored by this list though, it is just a completely random selection of some of the thousands of incidents. No idea why you think it surprising that "injuries and fatalities aren’t reported often by government organizations", why would they make public reports on all deaths in their country or region? Totals, yes, but government organizations have hardly a need to publish individual natural accident reports. Fram (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a good list for obstructing creation of tons of new articles that would otherwise fail WP:NOTNEWS. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a tarrible reason to keep an article. Because the alternative would be worse? Especially since, judging from redirects to this page, no such new articles ever existed. Fram (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this. A list of non-notable events which have newsy articles attached to them does not make for a notable subject. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional weak keep If only fatal lightning strikes are included. Might need to be divided by region. If it is not kept to fatalities only, then Strong delete. We don’t need to document hundreds of thousands of lightning strikes. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. United States Man (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A complete list of verified lightning strikes causing injury or death in a given year would likely too long to be of value. Additionally, as the vast majority of lightning strike events would/will not rise above the WP:NOTNEWS threshold, this list is nothing but a collection of trivia. Drdpw (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but maybe we can make a page of notable lightning strikes that caused deaths, injuries, and/or very severe damage throughout history instead of just one year. (i.e. this case where lightning strikes caused an explosion of dynamite in a water tunnel that was under construction) ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether we should keep only notable incidents or the one that caused at least a fatality can be decided elsewhere but I don't see any point in deleting this list. Orientls (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NLIST, if there were several individual lightning strikes that were themselves notable than this article might have served a legitimate navigational purpose for readers, but since as far as I can tell not a single individual lightning strike in 2022 has its own page that does not apply here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lightning deaths each year have been trending downward, though there are still many thousands of injuries. While these are sometimes reported in the news, they aren't the sort of notable events that we should be compiling. There are likewise far too many power outages, fires, and other incidents for us to pretend to have a useful list of. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear WP:DOGBITESMAN routine unencyclopedic material. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:02, 7 September 2022 (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.