Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Scotland Windstorm

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Scotland Windstorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This storm event appears to be the creation of a facebook group. Whilst there has been bad weather in the United Kingdom in the period covered, there is no indication that official meteorological agencies or other reliable sources have treated this as a single named storm. Delete. Jeremy (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, note that none of the events described in the article took place in Scotland.—Jeremy (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Why doesn't anyone listen? If you looked at the page when it was created, it said the GBMA was an official (but small) meteorological agency.GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify that with a citation on the article as requested, please. Tim PF (talk)

• Delete. It's misnamed, has almost no sources (WP:CITE), wasn't a particularly bad storm and may easily be summarised in its existing short entry in European windstorm. I've written more on its talk page. Tim PF (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a reason why this page should be deleted. If people look at Google Earth (With Weather settings on) you'll see that the storm was real. Also, a tiny space such as that on the European Windstorm page could not cover what can be covered in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpxpress (talk • contribs) 8 February 2011

• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. "NOTWEATHER" is a consequence of NOTNEWS. A truckload of peas spilled on the carriageway, and a few other random weather related events happened when the wind blew. "The storm was real" is not a meaningful "keep" argument. Edison (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources, no notable coverage, can't even find the GMBA. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Facebook group surrently, and it's the GBMA

Plus there might be no coverage as European Windstorms are not recognised as real by many people, hence the Keep in my previous post Tpxpress (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, it was quite windy at the back of last week (my bins even got blown over), yes this was anticipated and mentioned as causing disruption. No, it was nothing like the Glasgow hurricane of January 1968 or many other spells of windy weather. AllyD (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - words fail me. Have people really not got anything better to write for Wikipedia? Really? Really, really, really? The mindset that can expend so much energy on such an unbelievably insignificant "event" is just totally beyond my comprehension. We lack thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of biography articles on notable Scots biographies/organisations etc. if only editors would focus on something on genuine and lasting worth. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far too much information in this article is unverified. Even if the information is verified, it will still probably fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS, but verification in reliable sources would be a start. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As previously mentioned, it was not a single named storm event, none of the officially contributing weather systems were called 'Gustav', nor was it focused on Scotland. As for the remark about 'European Windstorms not being recognised as real by many people', laughable! As a catastrophe modeller within the insurance industry, and I can assure you that comment is seen as absurd! If it were true, then why would all the major cat modelling companies produce EU Winstrorm models?! There have been no insured loss estimates released (as it was such a non-event(s)) so why the random figure of £10m was included is rather bizarre! GEETD (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment This is laughable. Saying this storm - WITH 131MPH WINDS AND CAUSING MORE THAN 10 MILLION POUNDS OF DAMAGE - is not notable is like saying Cyclone Yasi is not notable. In fact, if this is being called not notable, Yasi can't be, either. So I'll go delete that, hmmm? It'll mean there's one less unneeded trashy article on Wikipedia. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you sourced 131 mph winds and over £10 million of damage, other than some wild speculation in the article. Oh, and I've just removed the £10m from the article, as no-one seems to have a reliable figure. The speed is still there with its {{citation needed}} tag. Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi has citations to substantiate over USD 2 billion.^[1] Tim PF (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above {{reflist}} added to illustrate what a damages citation looks like. Tim PF (talk)

• Keep if citable - all this article really needs is citations. The event is seemingly notable enough (given that the information in it is true) and just needs citations to be fine. Should no sources back up the event or to a significantly lesser degree, the article should be deleted. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - revising (again...) previous statement after a more in-depth look through news articles. I have found mention of one fatality; evacuations (also mentioned as strongest storm thus far); 9,000 without power. There appears to be enough to support it but is it necessary to have the article? As a side note in regards to the "name"; the storm wasn't named Gustav; that name is not even on the list for windstorm names. The article also claims that it passed over the UK on February 2, also false. At the time, the tail of Windstorm Klaus was in the region. The only system that moved over the area was a weak low named Nicolas. Basically...the storm listed in the article doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That means there were at least 2 confirmed deaths, as there is one cited death in the article (no-one has yet produced a citation for the canoeist). Tim PF (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note however that assembling a death toll in this manner is an example of an original synthesis of published material. In order to give a death toll for this storm we would need a reliable source that gave the death toll. In fact, the whole article is really an example of WP:SYNTHESIS—even if reliable sources were found for every individual event described, the tying of them all together as the results of a single storm event is something that I am yet to see in any reliable source.—Jeremy (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, was I not being sufficiently ironic? I hadn't actually done that in the article (although I did revise the speculative "(At least) 2 dead" to just "2 dead"). I'd agree that the article itself is an example of unpublished synthesis, but doesn't adding up numbers of fatalities merely a routine mathematical calculation (WP:CALC)? No, it probably isn't, as we have 2 or 3 isolated news articles, and we haven't a clue how many we missed (or not). Anyway, 'tis irrelevant in this case, as the whole article is pretty much unsourced and certainly falls down on Wikipedia:No original research. Tim PF (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name 'Gustav' was given by the GBMA (Small Facebook Group) however it has not been recognised as Gustav anywhere else Tpxpress (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just found that WP:COI is being violated. The "GMBA" doesn't exist, I could find it nowhere through a Google search besides in this article and on Facebook. The Facebook group is also primarily written by George Griffiths. Not only is he "citing" the article with information from an apparently fake agency, he is citing himself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - several actually:

1. I think you got the acronym confused, but I cannot find anything under "GBMA" either.
2. George Griffiths is a fairly common name; are you sure it's the same one?
3. I have not noticed this GeorgeGriffiths citing anything; only removing several {{citation needed}} tags without justification - (see User talk:GeorgeGriffiths).

I also moved the reflist to just below my example citation. Tim PF (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It screams of WP:NEWS. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with all the above "Delete"s. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can think of more reasons for delete, and it does need a load of citations. Plus it's not really THAT notable Tpxpress (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Based on the weather maps (see Cyclonebiskit's links above) from the Free University of Berlin (the "agency" that names the Windstorms, there was no Windstorm. After the tail of Klaus passed over the UK, the only other storm was a weak storm, Nicholas, that moved into the area only on February 5. I am not saying that this weather event was not real, however it was not a windstorm. — Iune(talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It made landfall (meteorology) in Scotland. It started in South Greenland. Anyone else got a better idea of what to call it, or just gripes about what it is currently called? Anarchangel (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no landfall of this system in the British Isles, the centre of the storm was well to the north when it brought the intense winds to the area. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. So this storm made whatever the name is, for when anything from the edge to just outside the center of the storm hits land, in Scotland. Perhaps this article could enlighten us on that point. Anarchangel (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it really wasn't all that windy. MLA (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2011 (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.