Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non Winter storms of 2004–2007

: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. Rough consensus seems to favor deletion more than anything else here. –MuZemike 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

=[[Non Winter storms of 2004–2007]]=

:{{la|Non Winter storms of 2004–2007}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non Winter storms of 2004–2007}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Non Winter storms of 2004–2007}})

The article is not complete, not well sourced, does not pass WP:N Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Give it some time to develope more?--82.11.103.72 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_storm_activity_of_2005-2007&oldid=368799810 original article] exceeded 100 KB, and it appears to be in the midst of a WP:SPLIT. Also, the original article appears to be well sourced. At this point, I say give it more time to develop. Akerans (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Tentative Keep this appears to be part of a wider set of articles, if it is brought up to speed then seems very much an encyclopaedic page. On the other hand the whole series needs a lot more work (copyediting, reworking etc.). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

::Changed to Maybe Delete/Merge any valuable content. I just tried to improve areas of the article. While I think the subject has merit there are issues for what storms to include. There is, currently, no clear principle as to what has been included. A large number of the references appear to consist of simply photographs of storms; which are useful but don't really assert any notability (for example the 2004 Chad storms occur around 100 days every year, and there is nothing particularly big or "impressive" I can find for that year). Clearly storms in which people die (of which there are a few) may have notability. But it strikes me they may be better served as sections on other pages (such as those for the region they affect). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::Hmm, WP:IINFO doesn't seem to cover this particular article (unless it counts as statistics, which I am not convinced it does) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Redirect - The writer has redirected and merged it back to the old articl, which was better over all in my veiw.--81.100.126.134 (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I undid the redirect, since the AFD comment on the previous version indicated that it should not have been removed etc. (i.e. I think the redirect was premature.). I got here by way of the {{tlx|under construction}} tag on its talk page (via :Category:Pages actively undergoing construction), which I have removed. Hope I did the right thing there. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems to be an archetypal example of WP:IINFO - an arbitrary collection of weather events with no supporting sources which collect or categorise them in this way. It's not clear how we would generalise this without getting into OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • NOTE FROM ADMIN The article should not be redirected whilst this AfD debate is in progress. Such actions should only be performed once the AfD discussion closes, and if that is the consensus as determined by the editor who closes the AfD. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete A dust storm here, a rain storm there...is there a point to this article? It looks like Weather Channel filler. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Boareing It's too Boareing!--86.16.8.204 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about these lists, or the definitions they contain, once they have been published and become part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The authors seem to believe that there is something special about these random weather reports. Wikipedia is not a collection of random news reports, and it should not be a collection of random weather events either. Do meteorologists state in reliable sources that there was something special about the 3 year period the article covers? Is the 3 year collection of weather reports evidence for or against climate change, for instance? This complaint would be satisfied by breaking it out into "Severe storms of 2004, Severe storms of 2005", etc. I do not see the point in breaking it into "Winter Storms" and "Nonwinter Storms." Just go by month. In August it is hot in Northern Hemisphere winter and cold in Southern Hemisphere . Some storms are notable enough for their own articles, but many of these are clearly not. It looks like an indiscriminate collection of information. At the same time a list is preferable to separate articles about "a dust storm which killed one man" or articles about random little storms of different types in different places. Edison (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete It's covered on other pages, like the tornado page.--82.11.82.114 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2010 (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.