Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Victorian storms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Summarily closing as per Wikipedia:Speedy keep #5. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Victorian storms

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2010 Victorian storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no evidence that the storm has historic or cultural significance. The recentness of the event is a warning sign; there does not appear to have been any deaths or any property damage rising above the norm for this kind of thing. At the end of the day, it's just a storm. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not disputing that it meets the General Notability Guidelines. This isn't a delete on notability grounds, it's a delete on the grounds that it's a class of material that Wikipedia doesn't cover, as per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." See also WP:MILL for further illustration of why everything that meets WP:N does not automatically get a Wikipedia article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I say it's not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, would have expanded except that I am editing at work (in flagrant contravention of my employer's internet policy) and I got called away to actually do some work. :) The storm is notable on an historic basis. This is not just my opinion, a BoM spokesman has said "Saturday's storms will go down in the history books, characterised by the large amounts of hail"[1] Now, admittedly this is one of our rinky-dink antipodean meteorolists, who probably isn't as sophistiocated as your meteorologists in Europe and North America, but it is his opinion. The storm also caused significant damage to the city's main railway station, one of its major sports stadiums and its major performing arts venue. Again, I know it is in a city tucked away in the far corners of the world and doesn't raise a blip in more sophisticated areas but nevertheless us down here think it was a pretty big deal. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from Canberra. It's not Northern Hemisphere bias. (a) Someone saying "will go down in the history books" is clearly WP:CRYSTAL territory, and (b) WP:EVENT calls for "national or international" impact, and if there's any such impact, I have to say my good faith searches aren't showing Canberra feeling it just yet. You'd be looking for a Federal grant or interstate SES assistance to satisfy the "national or international" clause. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merits aside, this couldn't have just waited until it was off the main page? WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. The event passes WP:EVENT due to the diversity of news coverage, national significance and non-routine nature. The CBD of Melbourne turns into a lake and that's not notable? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't realise it was ON the main page or yes, I probably would have waited. Feel free to further my learning; is there an easy way to tell that an article is on the main page without actually VISITING the main page? Re: WP:EVENT, the problem here would appear to be WP:EFFECT - that these storms do not have "lasting effects", "historical significance" and are not "a precedent or catalyst for another event". About four out of the eight Australian capitals get flooded in any given year; that doesn't make the relevant storms Hurricane Katrina or even the 2003 Canberra bushfires. A freak snowfall in a town that doesn't normally get snow may be widely reported - but at the end of the day, it's just not encyclopedic, beyond maybe a mention in the "Climate" section of the relevant geographic article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm surprised this is on the main page, although I do think its notable. If an article is (or has been) on the main page, it will say so on the article's talk page. Regarding WP:EFFECT, that is not a bar that must be crossed. There are other ways an event can pass WP:EVENT, being those listed in my keep !vote above. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the education. I did check the talk page prior to AfD but I think I skimmed the boxes and moved straight to the chat. See also my further comments on WP:EVENT below in reply to Marcusmax. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:MILL is an essay not a guideline or policy, WP:N takes precedent over an essay any day. Per WP:NTEMP (which is an officially accepted guideline), "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage." -Marcusmax(speak) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but every item reported in a newspaper meets WP:N. Per WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is nevertheless not an indiscriminate collection of news information. The arbiter is WP:EVENT, which calls for events to have "enduring historical significance" or "a lasting significant effect", or in the alternative to have "widespread (national or international) impact" and be "re-analyzed afterward". None of which these storms meet. I cited WP:MILL as the explanation for WHY WP:N is not, per policy, considered the final arbiter of inclusion in Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, transient coverage that last a few days is not evidence that the event is not a transient news item. Many times in the past I have notvoted to keep items that other have nominated for deletion under WP:NOT#NEWS, but this event is the purest example of news I have ever encountered. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well none of this even makes much sense, how can one judge the long term impact of a event when it isn't even a week old? With that being said I find the core Wikipedia policy of notability should be used in this instance, while the impact is further determined. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: how can we judge the long term effects of recent events, the answer to that is we can't, and we therefore don't start articles on things "in case they become notable". (See WP:CRYSTAL.) I'm really not sure how that squares up with the "In The News" section of the front page, and of course there's an obvious information-gathering advantage in starting articles as events happen, because that's obviously when people are going to be most passionate and interested in the topic. However, that's a matter to take to policy reform. As of the present, policy's against retaining this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to judge; the nature of the event and lack of injuries, plus the type of coverage, indicates it's news. Furthermore, the "core" Wikipedia guideline of notability has a specialized Wikipedia:Notability (events) standard, which was approved by a greater consensus of editors than any single AfD. What you are saying is, essentially, "I don't believe in consensus." Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys do have valid viewpoints, but if this storm truly caused hundreds of millions of dollars (which we can't be sure of yet) then that too me makes it notable even with the lack of death. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the delete passes, how about the page gets userfied to Marcusmax's userspace, with no prejudice against reintroducing it once sources appear to establish its ongoing significance? Millions of dollars of damage by itself sadly isn't notable - that much money goes missing in capital works blowouts every day around the world without getting wiki pages - but if, say, the Victorian government makes a special disaster relief budget appropriation, or newspapers do stories on people who go out of business because of it, or a business quarterly does an article on an associated Victorian construction boom, that's the sort of thing you can use to found "lasting significance" sufficient to pass the test. Well, in my opinion, anyway. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, just as long as the In The News section isn't directed to my sandbox. As for monetary value and storms at WP:SEVERE, tornadic storms are supposedly notable if they cause at least $250 million obviously this is non-tornadic so that probably doesn't apply. But something similar to me would be fair for this article too. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable event which caused widespread damage to the Melbourne metropolitan area, with significant damage done in Melbourne's CBD. Just because this event may not be seen as significant to those in other countries, this doesn't mean that its not notable to others including the country which the event happened in. We have articles on Cyclones/Hurricanes which have caused $400 million (or less) and I do not see how capital works blowouts has anything to do with damage caused by a rare weather event (Not everyday a supercell hits Melbourne or any other Australian capital [except for Brisbane]).
"there does not appear to have been any deaths or any property damage rising above the norm for this kind of thing."
Thankfully there was no deaths but there were some minor injuries, there was widespread property damage which isn't the norm for Melbourne.
"At the end of the day, it's just a storm."
Well then all storms (Cyclones/Hurricanes, Supercells, Hailstorms, Thuderstorms, Duststorms, Windstorms ect) are just that, a storm but at the end of the day severity of the storm, the damage bill, any deaths and injuries (not all storms have deaths or severe injuries) makes the event notable.
Also the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have put up a brief summary on the event, and if you say the BoM always does this, they don't as a summary is only released when there is a significant and notable event! Bidgee (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret "isn't the norm for Melbourne" to mean "of local interest only". The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) source you mention is a primary source and inappropriate for establishing notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean nationally as a view, so don't interpret something where I clearly said about capital cities. Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) is an authority, therefore can be used to establish notability. The BoM is like the National Weather Service (NWS) in the USA is like the BoM and no one has questioned the NWS being used to establishing notability for weather events affecting the USA so I can't see why the BoM is treated differently. The BoM will be releasing a full report on the event at a later date. Bidgee (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(BoM) may be an authority, but it absolutely is a primary source. We do not use the National Weather Service to establish notability; it is good for facts. If the NWS said that yesterday was the hottest March 11th in the history of Poughkeepsie, New York, would that mean I could create a Wikipedia article on it? Please familiarize yourself with the policies mentioned above. Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources may be used, being an authority helps (Those who work at the NWS or BoM are far more trained on meteorology then the media) but yes secondary sources should be used if available, Quote from WP:PRIMARY "Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
"If the NWS said that yesterday was the hottest March 11th in the history of Poughkeepsie, New York, would that mean I could create a Wikipedia article on it?"
You are talking about a totally different weather event, also this Melbourne/Victorian event has not just been reported one organisation.
"Please familiarize yourself with the policies mentioned above."
Please don't insult me, I have been an editor here for almost five years. Bidgee (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made up that weather event. You are misunderstanding the nature of notability and of primary sources, and that led me to my request. It was not meant to be insulting. Abductive (reasoning) 07:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Again you made-up a weather event that is totally unrelated to this one and has no relevants to this (not to mention no facts). Trying to use it as to use it as if I have "misunderstanding" is completely an untrue accusation. Bidgee (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't know the policy well enough to comment on whether the article should be kept or not, although my gut feeling is that it does meet notability requirements, however I would like to make a comment on your above example. This was not just "the hottest day in history". This was a major weather event that caused major damage and had a huge impact on tranportation, events etc etc (these arguments have already been made, I'm very briefly summarising). The insurance costs itself are astronomical.[2][3] A hot day certainly doesn't wouldn't have the same wide reaching affects, nor would it be likely to bring a major city to a standstill, nor would it be likely to feature on international news. I'm tempted to make "other articles exist, so...." claims but will refrain. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw apologies for the poor writing in my comment, its been a long day and my brain is fried. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw 2 - the nominator's comment that "there doesn't appear to be any property damage rising above the norm" made me laugh. One of the two major railway stations in the state's capital city - and the only one hosting the rural trains - had to be evacuated because of damage to the roof. I wouldn't say that that was "normal". PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This storm was a notable event. Not in my 30+ years or in my parent's memory has there been such a storm in this State. Flooding is common in other areas of Australia but not Melbourne. My children will always remember Grandma's frantic phone call when massive hails stones smashed through the house windows and through the car windows. Wikipedia is where they will go for information when doing a school project on it. The State's two major train stations shutting down is mind blowing. The AFL never cancel a football match. This was a holiday weekend, the middle of a festival, and people from all around Australia were impacted. This was not just any normal storm.--Giraffee (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP:NOTNEWS policy reads "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion ... routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion." I don't see that as a restriction here. WP:EVENT is more relevant, and notes that storms can be notable, although "a minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable." The article reports some human impact, in the form of injuries and evacuations. This particular storm may also influence the Australian debate on climate change (which would guarantee notability), but such an impact can only be guessed at, since the event is recent (WP:EVENT notes that events "that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable ... [but] this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not"). The storms were reported outside Australia: that suggests some degree of notability. I think deletion would be totally inappropriate, although it may make perhaps sense to merge into an article on "Severe storms in Australia." In any case, I think this article should remain as is for now, and be reevaluated after a few months. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token Moral The-System-Is-Flawed Delete, I live in Australia, read the paper every day, and this event barely registered. It was two days of rain for cryin' out loud, with no disproportionate amount of deaths/injuries/damage. Unencyclopaedic subject which will attract next to no viewers. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's fairly obvious, if you read the article, that it was a lot more than "two days of rain". It was covered by newspapers in Brisbane and Sydney, at least, and also received international coverage (newspaper articles and on the nightly news) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability threshold for tornados is $250 million, and this storm will exceed that, never mind the other notability indicators. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And 10,000 people have read the article already. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page views != interested persons. If that were the case, every person on Earth would be loading up Google every couple of minutes. To the best of my recollection this wasn't a tornado, and if you had read above you'd have realised this was not a notability nomination (doubly so when it comes to tornado notability criteria), but a NOTNEWS nom. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, I was responding to the (incorrect) suggestion that the page "will attract no viewers." Secondly, this event seems more notable than a tornado in a tornado zone, rather than less, because it's more unusual. Thirdly, the original nomination was based on a misunderstanding of WP:NOTNEWS, which rules out "routine news reporting" -- WP:EVENT makes it quite clear that articles on events are quite acceptable, if notability criteria are met. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CORN and WP:CRACK I say BORKise this article pending the MfP review, assuming the Portal:CHICKENFOOT precedent holds. Clearly you missed the 'the-system-is-flawed' bit in my vote (psst, it's the text in bold). Perhaps unlike many, I understand the meaning behind all those neat little acronyms you cling on to, but also unlike many, I also understand that we shape policy, not vice versa. This event is utterly insignificant. It is barely worth a mention in the Climate in Melbourne article (if said article existed). It will not be discussed any more than perhaps a stubbed toe in the weeks - years - centuries to come. A six word sentence in an esoteric meteorological journal is all this event can ever aspire to, or perhaps a footnote to a table of data. I'm sure you're aware that NOTNEWS actually links to a section labelled "We are not an indiscriminate collection of information", and rarely has that sort of statement felt more appropriate. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please. There are other articles on meteorological events such as Boscastle flood of 2004 and they are interesting now and will be, until cricket-ball sized hailstones happen every other day. Vernon White . . . Talk 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHwha- hey, this wasn't on the news anywhere in Britain or newspapers. I never even realized Australia had had two days of rain and a bit of hail in the past few days. And anyway, big wow. Britain gets that often and everytime it happens it doesn't go on Wikipedia. Btw the Boscastle flood was notable, this was not. Boscastle was on worldwide news, not just local.
  • Keep Regardless of its arguable significance it is, nonetheless, a historical event and worthy of some mention if users wish to write an article about it. That said, I don't believe it necessarily deserves a full article but could be included as a section of another article (i.e.) Severe storms in Australia). - Anonymous

Ggoere (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Victorian_storms&oldid=1146658840"