Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Bordering on keep. Sandstein 07:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 North American heat wave

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2018 North American heat wave (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)

Trivia. Wikipedia is not about summer weather. Are we going to add a "heat wave" article every year as soon as some region gets some hot days? — JFG talk 07:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Thanks for participating. — JFG talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First world problem. Not a big issue compared with real disasters elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, dying in a heat wave is a first world problem. Alex of Canada (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding? 33 deaths in Quebec alone is not a big issue? -Zanhe (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a big issue in the same way obesity wiped out about 10% of dead Canadians in 2000. We don't have an article for the 2000 fat season, why do we need one for a five-day portion of the 2018 hot season. Hot people and fat people overlap with sick and dying people consistently since 1982 (in my experience). You can wheel a 700-pound chain-smoker outside out for the gentlest spring breeze ever discovered and she's liable to croak on the spot; if she doesn't, she'll do it some other day and someone else will die today. Mortality has a way of maintaining a natural and healthy balance. Heat in Eastern Ontario is sort of like duck hunting in Eastern Kentucky that way; some days you shoot more, and the foxes pick up the slack, somedays vice versa. At the end of the day, there's enough duck for everyone and everyone's happy (including the ducks). Some people keep that shit up from the cradle to the grave, killing the amount of ducks the same pond started with many times over, and so for the foxes. Glorious bountiful death is also known as life. Life happens and life goes on.
A big issue (in an ecological sense) is more like hunters showing up in Eastern Kentucky 300 years before most people picture Eastern Kentucky and just mindlessly slaughtering ducks and foxes alike left and right. An abnormal phenomena of highly significant trauma to males and females of all ages, fitnesses and purposes indiscriminately. That sort of disaster is acute, like an axe to the planet's head; it swells and bleeds into all sorts of nasty aftermath, ramificiations and public inquiry. Entire tribes of ducks of foxes are cleared off the map in the blink of of an eye (on a sociohistorical scale) and they never come again. In move high-rise eagles and high-priced wolves, and soon you've got places like Bowling Green springing up where people have access to Wikipedia and are wondering what the hell actually went on there to make them wonder about it in the first place. It's big and unique and has lasting effect, whatever it is.
In simpler terms, a notable disaster is similar (but not necessarily equal to) to the
Health effects of the sun
. This one is firmly in the latter column, and I say that as a middle-aged lazy white man with a history of kidney problems and concussions who got the same air Montreal did, and rode the wave stuck to a mattress beside a fan with water, weed, tobacco and chips. If it was as disastrous as CNN (kind of) implies, I logically should have died in the red zone, too, or at least seen something scary. I have an injured rooster and a 15-year-old goat known locally for her pointless exuberance, and they've improved steadily since Canada Day "attacked" us all. Not a single person in my whole town (all in the danger zone) reportedly died of anything this week (and word travels quick here). I called my buddy from two towns over today, and everything he knows is pretty much as it was at the end of June, too.
If you want to create an article called The Quebec 58, and have it focus on the affected people and their kin's backstories and coping mechanisms, I say all the power to you. I can see CBC perhaps following through a bit on that. But in the context of North America and its 500 million or so, even 100 dead people aren't nearly enough to matter. All about proper context, not stifling weather information. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Not trivia. Many people have died. As a result of these deaths, governments may pay more attention to protecting at-risk people during future heat waves. Also, other weather events such as hurricanes are recognized as notable."
and
"clearly notable with historic significance", "Persisting coverage"
2018 Eastern Canada heat wave should probably be merged to this title, since the heat wave affected the United States. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do not mention "historic(al) significance" just a few days into hot weather. See the 2016 North American heat wave, which in hindsight was not significant at all. — JFG talk 22:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There's an article devoted to said types of weather, located at Extreme weather. North America1000 13:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge
    2018 Eastern Canada heat wave into this article. This is a major disaster and definitely not trivia, with 33 deaths in Canada alone. -Zanhe (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
GEOSCOPE wants a significant impact on a wide area or population, not just a wide area or population that envelops two sentences about scattered personal impacts, with thousands of miles of same old North America in between. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this heatwave has broken several records in these parts, I think making it at least somewhat notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This heatwave is notable for its unusual intensity and duration, mirrored in other parts of the world too. A heatwave can be considered a natural disaster, and dozens of people have died from it. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got sources verifying "unusual intensity and duration", and "mirrored in other parts of the world"? — JFG talk 22:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or "considered a natural disaster"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. As sad as it is, many people die every day from traffic accidents, from heat, from cold, from malnutrition, falling from ladders, or drowning. Barring a demonstrably exceptional death toll, such events are not encyclopedic. The
2003 European heat wave claimed tens of thousands of lives, so that one was indeed notable as exceptional weather (called the "hottest summer since 1540" in our article). — JFG talk 20:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If a single traffic accident killed 54, or 54 people all drowned in a single incident, then it would be darn notable.--21:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320 (talk • contribs)
As it would be if 54 people died in the same nursing home (or wherever) from the same dose of daylight. But considering the continental air itself a single entity (for one week, but not others) is the same as considering an uptick in motor, shooting, obesity, drug or terror-related deaths as a unified "wave", too. Only tied together by topicality, not reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes less is more when it comes to unfortunate events. A couple of weeks ago in Rosemont, a man was found run over by a car. Police later learned he himself had earlier run over a man with the same initials and birthdate! What are the odds in a city that size, eh? 100%, strangely enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What part of EVENT do you think 54 deaths satisfies? This heat affected over a hundred million people. If 99.99999% of the impact is only temporary and fleeting discomfort without destruction, population shifts, rebuilding or political fallout, you can't point to the 0.0% who died (and were mostly dying anyway) as much of anything, let alone a defining aspect and the basis for the whole article's existence. It's plainly
WP:UNDUE and presents an extremely skewed view of the general event. Individual local temperature records are useful trivia, and should be mentioned in each locality's perfectly suitable Climate section. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia has an article on Heat wave which clearly explains what it is, unless you want to delete that as well. 93 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:COVERAGE would come into the mix. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If you're talking about me, I don't do it to badger, ridicule or delete for deletion's sake. I do it because others claim it meets EVENT, with either no or mistaken explanations on how it does. By prompting for elaboration or correction, I'm giving "the inclusionists" an opportunity to strengthen positions they may not have realized were too flimsy on the first try. (My response to "Are you kidding?" was admittedly a bit much.) I know it inevitably seems rude to tell someone they're wrong, but that's never my intent. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the closing admin or editor make the call on a solid
WP:CONSENSUS or not? I don't know what you are seeing, but not all of the keep arguments are votes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No one is disallowed from pointing out that there's not much consensus-based rationale for keeping so far. A number of editors have tried to argue for keep, but no one has really offered anything for those keeps that can satisfy how
talk) 22:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You have not addressed how this doesn't meet
WP:INDEPTH, if this were really routine do you think that this much attention would be paid to the event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
As I've already addressed, no one has demonstrated there has been much attention paid to this above your standard heat wave. The burden is on those wanting to keep to establish depth, which hasn't been done yet no matter how many people come in saying it's been covered widely by the media. The issue I've been outlining is that it seems like many of the keeps incorrectly assume news coverage = notability in a topic like this or that breaking a few records and having sick and elderly die is out of the norm for these events. This has so far been in the realm of standard reporting for a heat wave, so it's inappropriate at this stage to call it an obvious keep.
talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2018_North_American_heat_wave&oldid=935339149"