The result was delete. just an off topic comment to the close but surely the way to handle marginally/nn stiorms like this is a yearly list? Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject is currently in the midst of a notability debate, and the main issue is that there hasn't been much discussion from outside of the project. To test the waters, I present a short-lived tropical storm that affected no one. According to the notability guidelines, an article must have significant, independent sources. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a news source. As of now, all of the sources in the article are from the National Hurricane Center (NHC). As a little background information, the NHC issued advisories on Norma and likewise issued all significant publications on the event. As a result, it is hardly independent from the storm (which wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be notable, if the NHC wasn't involved).
There are likely to be significant sources on storms that don't affect people, as tropical storms routinely get mentioned by the Associated Press and other news agencies. That didn't even happen for Norma, as there are only four news articles while it was active, one of which not even on this storm. Here is an example of a news excerpt, and notice how it says "according to the National Hurricane Center". As the storm didn't affect land, there is no way there could be any sources on the storm that don't stem from the NHC. Additionally, look at Wikipedia:Notability (events). In the context of Norma being a single event, one can tell how non-notable it was, as it hasn't been in any news articles since the year it occurred.
In all, Norma was a very routine event. It formed, and it dissipated, as many other storms do every year. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I would even add storms to that list. Storms are just that – routine – and shouldn't be treated as some kind of god-like thing. All in all, agree with nominator. (Can I also point out that WP:AFD isn't for merge discussion; see WP:Proposed mergers for that.) Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC) replyRoutine 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.
All I am saying is that you can argue otherwise, but that argument is weak and should be avoided here. Y E Tropical Cyclone 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. just an off topic comment to the close but surely the way to handle marginally/nn stiorms like this is a yearly list? Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject is currently in the midst of a notability debate, and the main issue is that there hasn't been much discussion from outside of the project. To test the waters, I present a short-lived tropical storm that affected no one. According to the notability guidelines, an article must have significant, independent sources. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a news source. As of now, all of the sources in the article are from the National Hurricane Center (NHC). As a little background information, the NHC issued advisories on Norma and likewise issued all significant publications on the event. As a result, it is hardly independent from the storm (which wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be notable, if the NHC wasn't involved).
There are likely to be significant sources on storms that don't affect people, as tropical storms routinely get mentioned by the Associated Press and other news agencies. That didn't even happen for Norma, as there are only four news articles while it was active, one of which not even on this storm. Here is an example of a news excerpt, and notice how it says "according to the National Hurricane Center". As the storm didn't affect land, there is no way there could be any sources on the storm that don't stem from the NHC. Additionally, look at Wikipedia:Notability (events). In the context of Norma being a single event, one can tell how non-notable it was, as it hasn't been in any news articles since the year it occurred.
In all, Norma was a very routine event. It formed, and it dissipated, as many other storms do every year. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I would even add storms to that list. Storms are just that – routine – and shouldn't be treated as some kind of god-like thing. All in all, agree with nominator. (Can I also point out that WP:AFD isn't for merge discussion; see WP:Proposed mergers for that.) Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC) replyRoutine 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.
All I am saying is that you can argue otherwise, but that argument is weak and should be avoided here. Y E Tropical Cyclone 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply