Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow coverage

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. W.marsh 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snow coverage

No sources, doesn't seem to be verifiable—probably original research. Runningonbrains 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Snow coverage is coverage of snow. Whoopee. Don't we all have better things to do? Hey, guess what: foot coverage is coverage of feet. And - wait! cool! - I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'll bet that media coverage is ... nah, never mind, it's a stretch. - Corporal Tunnel 18:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is unverifiable, original research. Even if properly sourced, it can't be more than a dicdef. Were historical examples to be introduced, they would make more sense on the individual snowstorm's page (if there was one.) SliceNYC 00:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sources cited. There are references and sources for this article that have been posted. This is not original research, but clearly something that has become a part of American culture during the winter season. I respectfully disagree with tagging this for deletion and ask the wikipedia "powers to be" to remove this as a candidate for deletion. --Wac01 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply not encyclopedic. Kafziel ^Talk 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing the Specific Delete Comments

Now to address the two delete comments in detail above:

• "Snow Coverage is coverage of snow. Whoopee...": Ok, this is someone's opinion. They have a right to that opinion. That doesn't say this article doesn't have encyclopedic content. The references and sources from all over the United States say otherwise that this is a part of American Culture.

• "It is unverifiable, original research. Even if properly sourced, it can't be more than a dicdef. Were historical examples to be introduced, they would make more sense on the individual snowstorm's page": In fairness, there were no references and sources posted at the time of this comment. This has been changed. As for the "historical examples", this is tricky. Snow coverage is often "overhyped" (as the sources point out) and the individual snowstorms aren't encyclopedic enough to warrant being in here. However, there is an example of John Bolaris' "Storm of the Century" that should suffice.

--Wac01 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Even if specific storms aren't encyclopaedic on their own, a brief mention in the article would help its encyclopaedic value. Media circus is on the same level IMHO...borderline encyclopaedic, yet benefits from reliable sources including OED, with specific quotes mentioned to back up the phenomenon's existence. If there are no real historical examples (aside from The Blizzard of '96 as quoted in the media circus article), then the phenomenon isn't really significant enough to warrent its own article. Merging some info into Media circus may strengthen that article, however. -Runningonbrains 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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.