Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Clarkson floods

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. Consensus is against keeping. From among the ATD proposals, the redirect to the list of floods can't be implemented because the topic is not mentioned there, and the merger to the locality has little support. Sandstein 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Clarkson floods[edit]

[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)

This event does not meet WP:NEVENTS. This is only a minor flood with minor damage and no injuries. This will not have a lasting effect. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. No lasting impact to meet WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be the sort of event with enduring notability. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant event that took place in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.11.78 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "significant" is not a criterion for notability. You need to demonstrate how it meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is significant about it? Will people care about it in ten years? – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clarkson, Western Australia per nom's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Not a particularly notable natural disaster. AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with many unfortunate incidents or minor disasters, relevance is typically limited to the affected region/country. Without WP:SUSTAINED coverage, ideally internationally, there is no demonstrating it has a WP:LASTING effect and therefore, cannot be adjusted to be notable. I wouldn't object a condensed version being merged into Clarkson, Western Australia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object as well to merging with Clarkson, Western Australia. The floods covered more than just Clarkson. The article claims that Clarkson, Butler, Joondalup, Currambine, Ridgewood and Mindarie were all flooded or at least received warnings. I still think a straight up delete would be the best course of action. Steelkamp (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I also oppose merge. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more thinking that I would not have any particular concerns if it were mentioned it in an article relevant to the region, rather than a full-on entire merge (hence "condensed version"). I am not familiar with the geography of the region, but appreciate that if it affected multiple places, then mentioning in only one article would not always be appropriate (although the title of the article itself mentions Clarkson, so this seemed to be the worst affected I would imagine).

Fundamentally, my preference is in agreement to delete, which I !voted for. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floods in Australia - I agree that its not notable on its own, and that it shouldn't be redirected/merged with the Clarkson article, but there is another reasonable redirect target --DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even mentioned on that list, and why should it be? It's not a very significant flood. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 11 days after the flood and no one is talking about it anymore. It has been out of the news since 1 day after the flood. This flood simply is not very signficant. Steelkamp (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect And add to Floods in Australia, per DannyS712.12.11.109.231 (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2024 (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.