Deletion of 2017 Ottawa Storm

Comment: I already think editors get carried away with every storm that receives a day of coverage or knocks out power for a few days. The 10-year test? Heck, this fails the ''1 day test'' with only local media |routine reports
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Every thunderstorm that happens at all does not automatically need a Wikipedia article just because the power goes out and there's some localized flash flooding — both of which are things that quite |routinely happen in conjunction with thunderstorms. What we require is evidence that this would pass the |ten-year test for enduring ''significance'', such as perhaps a lightning strike setting Parliament on fire, or the Alexandra Bridge collapsing from the sheer volume of precipitation, or an actual ''tornado'' ripping through Barrhaven — and even if one of those things ''did'' happen, the actual article that resulted would be about ''those'' events rather than the thunderstorm per se. But three pieces of same-day coverage in the local media don't demonstrate enduring notability at all. (And, to boot, I'm going to be filing a sockcheck on the creator shortly, because the Ottawa aspect, coupled with the "anything that can be sourced at all automatically warrants an article" aspect, puts me just a little too much in mind of a previously-blocked user
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:10YT)

Comment: Wikipedia is not the weather channel. this is a fairly  event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)