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 merge to Summer heat wave of 2012 derecho series. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (shout) @ 11:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late July 2012 North American derecho (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This storm did nothing notable. There were no injuries or deaths and very few tornadoes. There are no sources and these types of minor derechoes happen all the time and do not get pages. United States Man (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a source, and the storm is notable for affecting some of the same areas with the third derecho in a week. That is historic, regardless of injuries or deaths. Your statement regarding injuries, in addition, is false. 5 people were injured per the SPC reports for that day. You cannot delete an article on the grounds of simply being a WP:STUB.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 06:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. Although there are reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a news site. Events must have lasting effects on a large scope to be considered notable. This event doesn't look like it'll last the news cycle.--SGCM (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now Keep YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Change to merge – Per WP:NOTABILITY. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge - derecho is a notable event that was covered extensively and ravaged parts of the NE United States, and although currently it is only sitting on 2 sources, this can be expanded. While article has detail, only 2 references and minimal aftereffects hold it up, so it should be merged with another page where it is sufficient. TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But were the effects lasting, to the degree that it had "effects on the views and behaviors of society"? As WP:EVENT states, a storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable. There was widespread coverage, but Wikipedia is not a news site.--SGCM (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:GNG stuff with significant coverage get article, WP is not a parer encyclopedia, a lot of info does not do any harm. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not always. We have a specific guideline for the notability of events. Significant coverage does not always mean a subject warrants an article. As WP:NOT says, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it's still an encyclopedia, and it can't include every minor news event with wide coverage. Doing no harm does not matter, and is considered an argument to avoid.--SGCM (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only reason why WP:EVENT says is to prevent sports games from getting articles as stated here "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[3] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all". I honestly don't see any reason why WP can include somewhat minor events. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:EVENT does include weather events. WP:EFFECT specifically mentions natural disasters, which makes it especially germane to this discussion. I understand your position, but the current convention, established by the community, is that minor events are not considered notable.--SGCM (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for understanding. It is worth noting that this storm will get multiple reports from the NCDC in about 3-4 months and liekly other from the National Weather Service around that time, maybe sooner. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge Per WP:PRESERVE we should merge to a higher level article such as Summer heat wave of 2012 derecho series rather than deleting this. Warden (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge may be a good idea. I don't think the storm was large enough to be independently notable, but I don't object to a merge.--SGCM (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to Summer heat wave of 2012 derecho series, although that article is going to need some work and expanding as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sufficiently notable. Was invented mainly as a media vehicle to push AGW propaganda. Belchfire-TALK 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC
• Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. No lasting significance. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sounds like the best idea. That would preserve attribution and allow for reasonable search terms. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is best idea. Just add more sources, that's all I say. It WAS an official SERIAL derecho. The only reason there were way less injuries was because people were more prepared after the June derecho, which affected the same region. NWRGeek (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - It is a part of whole and not a significant event by itself. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For reasons mentioned earlier : people were injured and damage reported. Moreover, any derecho is by definition a significant and uncommon meteorological event. Sincerely, --Numero4 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But with such a small article that doesn't look like it'll grow, why not merge it into a bigger article about the season's derechos, similar to what we do with tornadoes? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 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.