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. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of weather reports and temperature readings. No significant effects of the heat wave documented by sources. Hence not notable WP:SYNTH. — JFG talk 08:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Thanks for participating. — JFG talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could merge this text, yes, but only if we can find a policy that permits inadequately sourced text to be moved around in Wikipedia rather than deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You may well argue to keep the contested article but not on a basis that runs contrary to Wikipedia policy! Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a "goldmine" of "anything one can imagine". There are specific criteria for the subject of a WP article. It must be, for starters, and above all else, verifiably notable. Wikipedia is not constructed by what I or you know and believe but on the basis of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not forget that we editors are not the ones who will "consolidate" or "reformat" data, because that would be quite blatantly original work. We need others, i.e. third-party, secondary, independent sources, to do the "consolidating" and the "reformatting", which we then may post up in an article. As to the references you cited, they are about something else (e.g. air conditioners!) and mention as an aside the prevalent high temperatures. Note, in this context, that in the popular media the word "heat wave" is used indiscriminately and without any concern at all about accuracy or relevancy. -The Gnome (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia supports several templates that generate graphs from tabular data. Or images of info graphs can be uploaded to Commons. Your assertion that summarizing data is original research is found nowhere in WP:NOR, because it’s not. In fact, what I said is the same as the policy WP:NOTSTATS. Even if the statistics can’t be presented in some other format, the article can be cleaned up by simply deleting the tables. Nothing here is a reason to delete. I’ve cited reliable sources saying that the topic is notable. That’s the only thing that matters at AfD. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. I should have been much clearer. I will repeat in hopefully clearer terms.
Wikipedia does allow us to produce graphs and upload images, indeed, Dennis Bratland. I know that since, after all, I have done my share of uploading graphs. But what we are NOT meant to do is, again, the interpretation of the data. We are NOT allowed to gather data about, say, the weather and proclaim, on our own, that they indicate some kind of specific type of weather, e.g. "mild," "extreme", a "heat wave," etc. We can go into graphic representation to the extent Wikipedia permits, yes, but the interpretation is off limits. (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and so on) -The Gnome (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (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.
More