Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail reports

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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hail reports

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

I am sure the author was well meaning, but this is an essay, and specifically wp:not what Wikipedia is meant for. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This would make nice info as a blog post or something, but is not a topic or an article. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy delete (G11). Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really fits the criteria for G11, since it isn't an advert, it's more of an essay, but we will see. I would have submitted for CSD had their been a category that it cleanly fit into. They usually won't speedy an essay because many times, the subject matter can be salvaged and put into a different format. I don't think this is one of those times, however. It looks kind of like a http://simple.wikipedia.org article. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete but as A10 as a duplicate of Hail rather than spam. Safiel (talk) 01:40, 2 March 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.