Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather Event in Ohio: 7/11/06

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 as a non-notable local meteorological event; more a news item than an encyclopedic article. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Event in Ohio: 7/11/06

Not really notable - just a couple of storms. Also poorly referenced. Biruitorul 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlike named storms, etc., this is a non-notable event, and WP:NOT Wikinews applies. Tornadoes like this are a dime a dozen (I think there were three near where I live last week?), and this doesn't seem to fall under topics of historical significance... in the news. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the very name of the article says it all. There are weather events, well, every day everywhere. When the weather is notable, someone gives that weather event some sort of name. Wikipedia is Not an indiscriminate collection of information on the daily weather in various locations. Cool3 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The primary author has put a significant amount of work on something that is few steps below a case study. If he wants to work further on it, he can do so there. Of course, if he doesn't run up against notability issues, he may eventually hit the NOR wall, when he'll probably need to take this some other place. (I will concede of course that this isn't the primary purpose of userification, but I elaborate below). While this has been sitting around for nearly 9 months, what concerns me is where the notability bar is set. This doesn't appear notable at first blush to me, but a lot of meteorological events that are commonplace are notable for their effects; a lot of low impact events are notable for meteorological reasons. My instinct is that this isn't the case here, but I'm uncomfortable enough to give this one the benefit of the doubt for further improvement--in another forum. –Pakman044 22:03, 30 April 2007 (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.