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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014 North American cold wave (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)

The meat of the article documents a winter storm already covered at November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm. The rest of the article has empty sections for other areas and impacts that have not been filled since February 2015. No particular notability for a few cold days in winter. Calling this the "worst cold wave since earlier same year" is just bizarre. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. They describe historic weather events that caused a lot of issues in the US/North America. Each one garnered a lot of headlines in the news, especially when the very snowy pattern that each caused. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose for all – Nominating all of these articles for deletion is ridiculous. I concur with the opinion of MarioProtIV above. These are notable weather events, some of which were historic in nature with significant news coverage. These are all significant weather events with notable impacts within their respective regions - and might I mention that the Weather Channel does not even constitute the majority of sources for these articles. Each article is also reliably sourced, and I think that the sources should speak for themselves and hold precedence over our own personal opinions. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear the opinion of other editors on this topic as well: @Master of Time, Hurricanehink, Knowledgekid87, Inks.LWC, and Jax 0677:. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why these people in particular? Please refrain from WP:CANVASSING. — JFG ^talk 13:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This event occurred weeks before the formal onset of winter. If an event receives enough given coverage at a given time, regardless of whether it is often referred to after the matter, it deserves to be covered. I'm sure most weather articles on Wikipedia don't receive extended lasting coverage, even the really significant ones. Additionally, I wouldn't want to lose information pertaining to the aftermath of Typhoon Nuri and the November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone, which is noteworthy. All that said, this article does have some significant deficiencies. If a compelling argument were made / draft created, maybe the articles could be merged in some sense, but I don't know of any precedent for doing such a thing (cold wave + winter storm). Master of Time (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The event broke several seconds and contributed to terrible winter storms. It also took place before winter even started making Steven more unusual. A simple AFD-cleanup tag would be better than deletion. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A continent-wide natural disaster that killed large numbers of people (at least 28). James500 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the material in the article can be (and largely is) sufficiently covered in the November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter articles. I don’t see how keeping the page even for a redirect would be all that helpful, as I doubt there are too many people going directly to the current article. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article overlaps two other articles as stated above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The material in this article is generally already covered in two other articles, so it is redundant to keep this article. Also, the fact that the article has been largely incomplete for over three years speaks to how it was created with an over-inflated storm impact in mind. Wikipedia is not the Weather channel and countless storms break weather records, have unique quirks, or kill people so this article is not needed on this encyclopedia. Weather events commonly impact large areas, so the dozens of routine sources in this article do not confer everlasting notability onto this event. It's simply life on Earth. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per MarioProtIV. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2018 (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.