Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November Storm of 1995

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. Galobtter (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Storm of 1995

[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)

does not satisfy the notability guidelines for events greyzxq ^talk 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. greyzxq ^talk 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, if you look at sv:Kraftiga stormar i Sverige före år 2000, you can see that this storm was nothing out of the ordinary except for lots of felled trees. greyzxq ^talk 13:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources for WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep One of the most famous 20th century weather events in Sweden. J 1982 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case it needs to be shown in the article. For me the article seems to describe any other storm with no significant events. All it says is that trees were snapped, there were transport difficulties and stuff was cancelled. greyzxq ^talk 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article points out that this was the worst autumn snowstorm (in terms of amounts of snow falling) in southern Sweden on record since measurings began in 1905. The sources include three media outlets (two national, major ones; one regional) looking back at the storm 10, 22 and 25 years later, respectively. /Julle (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the worst in terms of snowfall, but is otherwise not notable. All of the references being Swedish clearly shows it wasn't widely covered outside of the country, and if it was, that needs to be added to the article. greyzxq ^talk 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For an event in 1995, this means nothing at all either way. We have no news coverage from the time included in the article, from Sweden or elsewhere, as it largely predates online news. One is a report originally published on paper and later digitalized, and the other articles are written long after the storm (pointing to the lasting duration of the coverage). But most importantly, Wikipedia:Notability (events) expliclitly asks for "significant national or international coverage", so I really don't see what the problem would be according to our own guidelines. My interpretation is that WP:GNG and WP:Notability (events) are met in the current state of the article. /Julle (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines specifically say "significant coverage", which there isn't for this topic, at least not in the article. A simple Google search for "1995 Sweden storm" comes up with nothing. As I have already said, anyone reading this article would think that it was just a normal storm which caused traffic and closures. Again, if that isn't the case more information needs to be added with sources to make the article notable. greyzxq ^talk 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage, not only at the time when it completely dominated the news but also later, like this article in Jönköpings-Posten commemorating the event 25 years later. I've also added a piece from TV4 made 22 years after the event to the article. /Julle (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google search for "1995 Sweden storm" comes up with nothing, so if there is significant coverage it needs to be shown in the article. greyzxq ^talk 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability through WP:GNG. Good coverage and sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Appears to pass WP:GNG. If there was a better parent article for a merge, I might have considered to merge. But, I do not believe there is a parent article, so a simple keep on passing WP:GNG is my !vote. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2023 (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.