Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 United Kingdom snow events

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. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2005 United Kingdom snow events

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

I think this article fails WP:INFO. This article lists all of the snow events in the UK in 2005. I think these events are unnotable, and if some of them are notable, they would require a separate article. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It is actually well written, almost enjoyable to read, for something that is no more than a mix of the weather report and some minor weather related events. But it is no more than a weather report. - Nabla (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One day, we'll all be asking what "snow" was. I don't think we need to save undigested blobs of trivia to answer the question. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is an old article that is written in a very dull manner and is poorly sourced (only to statistics). According to article, 2005 was the snowiest year on record in the UK, tied with 1876. Articles based on unusual meteorological seasons are worthy of GNG IMO - see 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. If the snowfall that year broke numerous records, it should meet GNG (presuming significant coverage). —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG - Admittingly it needs improving but that can be fixed any day. –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unusual weather weather events and patterns can merit there own articles and pass WP:GNG per Wikimandia and Davey. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:FIVEPILLARS, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia incorporates elements of almanacs, which is the type of content this article consists of. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 6 June 2015 (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.