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 and rename to List of dust storms Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of dust storms with visibility of 1/4 mile or less, or meters or less[edit]

List of dust storms with visibility of 1/4 mile or less, or meters or less (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)

This is the only article of its kind, listing dust storms of a certain visibility. (How many meters? 400m = 1/4 mile, but that's not in the title.) There's no way it can be anywhere near comprehensive enough, unless somebody goes through every source about every dust storm since records began and pulls out information about the visibility, but yet only three of the twelve storms currently listed on the page are notable enough for an article of their own - one of which is the Dust Bowl which is not so much a storm as a decade of storms, including the second item on the list - and this indicates that it is hard to find enough notable storms to populate the list. Additionally, the list is heavily weighted post-2006, which must surely be inaccurate as dust storms happen every year around the world and so missing out nearly all of the 20th century is ill-advised.

There must be hundreds of dust storms which had visibility low enough to be included in this arbitrarily-defined list, yet almost none of them are notable, nor have many reliable sources, and so this list is of pretty much no use. I can't believe it has lasted since 2013. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) 22:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of dust storms and delete the arbitrary criterion and unnotable entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And add Great Bakersfield Dust Storm of 1977, 1983 Melbourne dust storm, 2014 Tehran dust storm, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename to either List of dust storms or more likely List of significant dust storms or List of notable dust storms, establish more rigorous criteria (Wikipedia notable, significance supported by RS, and/or deaths, injuries, or significant damage, perhaps) in the lead section of the revamped article, then trim the fat and regularly remove the non-criteria-meeting entries that will surely be added over time. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's assumed that list entries are notable/significant, so that's not specified in list titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Dust storm. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of dust storms. Even if the existing inclusion criteria are retained or altered, those criteria should be stated in the intro, not the title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and establish criteria as Ks0stm suggests. As nomination states, no reason have an arbitrarily-limited list. The visibility criterion appears to be an attempt at defining significance whereas such lists should be instead defined by noteworthiness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 26 September 2017 (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.