Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2010 (2nd nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

512:. The question is, is this the subject of the article notable, and from some research I'd say no. The cyclones I looked into that are included in the article didn't have their own articles. Treat it like a glorified list article, would a list article with no (or practically zero) blue links be notable enough to pass an AfD? I don't think so. More so in this case because it's not a list article and therefore requires encyclopedic content about the cyclones. Not just a glorified list in picture table form. Why drafty though? I think this could be worth having once articles are created for the individual cyclones. So, I have no problem with it being drafted or re-recreated later if (and only if) that happens. But in the meantime, there shouldn't be an article about various subjects where those subjects aren't notable themselves and don't have their own articles. You can't make otherwise non-notable subjects in a topic category notable just by combining them into a single article with a graph. -- 631:- The idea behind these articles is to provide basic information about tropical cyclones and an overview of the tropics during the year and not go into the individual storm histories. This includes all tropical cyclones within the year The idea is to cover all tropical cyclones that occur and provided basic information within the year, including the ones that are noteworthy and that are or are likely to be retired. For example, 427:, which are exhaustive, apply to this AFD: the nominator has not withdrawn, the nomination was not made on the grounds of vandalism or disruption, the nomination is not erroneous, the nominator was not blocked or banned, the page is not a policy or guideline, and the page was not linked from the main page. This is an entirely procedural step. The deletion discussion will be relisted for a fresh seven-day period from today. 757:
graphical timeline constitutes original research as the Australian intensity scale isn't applicable outside of the Australian region and the South Pacific. I understand where you're coming from, but personally I'd prefer to move conflicting/invalid information out of mainspace until it can be resolved. In the spirit of
596:
Or maybe convert into a directory to the articles on the various area articles for the year. Look, each of the Atlantic season articles is already pretty big, huge in the case of 2005. A list article for the whole world in a year is just way too big, not to mention duplicative. And I see that someone
254:
This article is very incomplete, and has been incomplete since it was created in 2018. Most of the monthly headings refer to January 2010, which indicates that no one has even tried to complete the article. Information on storms is available on individual storm articles, in the articles on storms
832:
Do you feel that the article, as it is right now, is misleading about the number of Tropical cyclones in March (or any other month for that matter)? Should we have articles that are, on their face, quite so misleading, in article space? Normally I'd suggest we just fix it, but the amount of work
733:
Moving to draft space would be counter-productive because the main effect of that space is to stop people from finding the page. Its categories would be munged and search engines would not see it. And there's no special staff assigned to work on drafts; they get less attention than articles in
756:
The thing is I'm not sure the information currently present in the article is even accurate, and if it isn't the article probably shouldn't stay in mainspace. The storm effects section appears to rely on information from the individual season pages, but some of the numbers don't even match. The
709:. Needs to be completed and brought up to existing standards, e.g. timeline should be organized by basin rather than by intensity. I recall it was decided somewhere that applying the Australian scale to all TCs worldwide constituted original research/synthesis. ~ 529:
I think the article *topic* is perfectly fine. At the least in-line with existing articles. But as it stands, it's so incomplete as to be wrong (no cyclones in March? Maybe?). If anyone feels the topic area is a problem, I'd suggest an RfC rather than an AfD.
52:. While there is some consideration that the article should be draftified until it is in a more complete state, there is a firm consensus that despite major absences in the article, no deletion grounds exist and it can always be improved. 82: 223: 692:. I find that this is a notable topic and we do not delete notable articles because they are incomplete or they are too much work to update - or because the Wikiproject has not made it a priority to update the page/list. 503:
You could argue that anything "could" be improved through editing. Correcting a spelling error is improving an article. So, it's way to vague a standard to keep everything due to. Plus, I've never seen anywhere that
667:
which are all notable for various reasons. I also hope that these articles will be expanded to include information on the global background and any direct political impacts eg: Covid 19 and the Vietnam
77: 217: 292: 255:
in years in each of the seven basins, and in an overall list article. This article not only creates more work for the WikiProject, but it creates work that they are not doing.
939: 183: 176: 272: 312: 149: 144: 108: 153: 850:, I think it isn't really misleading. The tables need expansion, and given people are willing to work on this (myself included), I think this can be kept. 123: 136: 491:
Completenessness is a requirement for featured status and those so few articles which have reached that level have been formally agreed to be complete.
1030:- Rome wasn't built in a (half a) week. (It was built in a millenium. It won't be that long. Shouldn't be more than a month.) Nor will be this AFD. ~ 1041: 1018: 1002: 980: 962: 907: 893: 877: 863: 842: 820: 799: 776: 747: 724: 701: 677: 623: 606: 586: 539: 521: 486: 465: 436: 407: 384: 365: 324: 304: 284: 264: 61: 614:
as nominator if the intention is that there should be articles at this level of detail in addition to articles on the basins and years.
342:
You can't delete it because you are upset it would require work to fix and are upset a Wikiproject of volunteers is not doing that work.
559: 238: 205: 103: 96: 17: 797: 396:
for what the article could eventually look like. Stub class articles shouldn't be deleted just because they require some work. ♫
597:
has created a huge union list of all cyclones for all time, tens of thousands of entries. The whole thing is just make-work .
140: 868:
You don't think someone could reasonably think there were no Tropical cyclones in March of 2010 from the article as it is?
117: 113: 199: 976: 958: 582: 482: 790:
per Hink and honestly draft space is kinda pointless in my view at least, considering there's already a defined article.
771: 719: 423:, I, an uninvolved administrator, am vacating this closure. I am doing this on the grounds that none of the criteria at 1058: 40: 195: 555: 1013: 743: 632: 619: 461: 393: 320: 300: 280: 260: 245: 132: 67: 664: 882:
I added a tag to expand the section. Now no one will be confused whether the article is incomplete or not. ♫
888: 857: 814: 402: 735: 689: 339: 336: 685: 445: 1054: 794: 57: 36: 211: 1008: 998: 739: 697: 673: 615: 565: 457: 316: 296: 276: 256: 758: 554:
why to delete an article just because it needs a little improvement. I propose that we move this to
231: 947: 883: 852: 827: 809: 517: 397: 972: 954: 578: 478: 92: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1053:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
929: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1036: 791: 767: 715: 660: 656: 602: 432: 379: 343: 53: 571: 509: 505: 449: 420: 994: 903: 873: 838: 693: 669: 535: 424: 946:
need to all be nominated for deletion? No! I've changed from draftify to keep based on
652: 640: 636: 644: 513: 988: 969: 951: 648: 575: 475: 454:
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
416: 968:
Also, we've only got one person for delete. Can someone SpeedyKeep-close this? 🐔
170: 1031: 762: 710: 598: 428: 374: 899: 869: 847: 834: 531: 935:
Just because an article is incomplete doesn't mean it needs to be deleted.
950:'s concerns about drafts, but still, I'm not letting this be deleted. 🐔 942:. Seriously, there are over 2.5 million stubs around Knowledge (XXG). Do 898:
I really don't think that's enough, but I appear to be in the minority.
833:
involved seems pretty large and it's been in this state for a while.
738:, adding no value and putting obstacles in the way of improvement. 419:, a non-administrator, as speedy keep. In line with the process at 83:
Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2010 (2nd nomination)
1049:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
761:
I may try addressing these myself if I can find the time. ~
993:
No - have some patience and let the AFD run its course.
166: 162: 158: 444:
99% of our articles are incomplete and it's our clear
230: 940:
Category:Tropical cyclone articles needing attention
415:: This discussion was closed at 20:49 on 6 June by 244: 570:, I'm sorry if I was being harsh and/or violating 560:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Tropical cyclones/2010 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1061:). No further edits should be made to this page. 311:Note: This discussion has been included in the 293:list of Environment-related deletion discussions 291:Note: This discussion has been included in the 271:Note: This discussion has been included in the 78:Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2010 8: 273:list of History-related deletion discussions 124:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 807:as long as people are ready to work on it. 1007:You'd think they would learn from this... 313:list of Lists-related deletion discussions 310: 290: 270: 75: 335:No valid reason given for deletion. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 734:mainspace. Draftification is just 562:so we can all work on it together. 74: 501:Delete with recreation or Draftify 373:...concurring with Dream Focus. ~ 24: 109:Introduction to deletion process 556:Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2010 1: 938:Using HotCat, I added it to 508:comes before or cancels out 629:Keep or move to Draft space 99:(AfD)? Read these primers! 1078: 452:also states clearly that " 1042:18:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 1019:18:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 1003:12:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 981:11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 963:11:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 908:20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 894:14:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 878:03:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 864:01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 633:Tropical cyclones in 2020 394:Tropical cyclones in 2019 133:Tropical cyclones in 2010 68:Tropical cyclones in 2010 62:08:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 1051:Please do not modify it. 923:Keep and quickly improve 843:17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 821:15:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 800:15:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 777:14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 748:09:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 725:06:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 702:23:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 678:20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 624:15:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 607:13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 587:13:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 540:12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 522:11:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 487:13:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 466:11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 437:10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 408:19:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 385:17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 366:17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 325:16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 305:16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 285:16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 265:16:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 688:is a policy and so is 574:on your talk page. 🐔 73:AfDs for this article: 926:(moved from draftify) 97:Articles for deletion 635:contains details on 552:absolutely no reason 448:that this is ok. 979: 961: 927: 891: 775: 723: 585: 485: 474:I'd say 100%. 🐔 405: 327: 307: 287: 114:Guide to deletion 104:How to contribute 1069: 1039: 1034: 1016: 1011: 992: 975: 957: 925: 887: 860: 855: 831: 817: 812: 765: 713: 581: 569: 481: 401: 382: 377: 362: 359: 356: 353: 350: 347: 249: 248: 234: 186: 174: 156: 94: 34: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1059:deletion review 1037: 1032: 1014: 1010:Nova Crystallis 1009: 986: 858: 853: 825: 815: 810: 657:Vongfong (Ambo) 616:Robert McClenon 566:Robert McClenon 563: 380: 375: 360: 357: 354: 351: 348: 345: 317:Robert McClenon 297:Robert McClenon 277:Robert McClenon 257:Robert McClenon 191: 182: 147: 131: 128: 91: 88: 71: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1075: 1073: 1064: 1063: 1045: 1044: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 966: 965: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 802: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 751: 750: 728: 727: 704: 680: 626: 609: 543: 542: 524: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 469: 468: 439: 410: 387: 368: 329: 328: 308: 288: 252: 251: 188: 127: 126: 121: 111: 106: 89: 87: 86: 85: 80: 72: 70: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1074: 1062: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1043: 1040: 1035: 1029: 1026: 1025: 1020: 1017: 1012: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 990: 985: 984: 983: 982: 978: 974: 971: 964: 960: 956: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 936: 932:-close this. 931: 924: 921: 909: 905: 901: 897: 896: 895: 890: 885: 884:Hurricanehink 881: 880: 879: 875: 871: 867: 866: 865: 862: 861: 856: 849: 846: 845: 844: 840: 836: 829: 828:JavaHurricane 824: 823: 822: 819: 818: 813: 806: 803: 801: 798: 796: 793: 789: 786: 785: 778: 773: 769: 764: 760: 755: 754: 753: 752: 749: 745: 741: 737: 732: 731: 730: 729: 726: 721: 717: 712: 708: 705: 703: 699: 695: 691: 690:WP:NOTCLEANUP 687: 684: 681: 679: 675: 671: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 627: 625: 621: 617: 613: 610: 608: 604: 600: 595: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 577: 573: 567: 561: 557: 553: 549: 541: 537: 533: 528: 527:move to draft 525: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 502: 499: 498: 490: 489: 488: 484: 480: 477: 473: 472: 471: 470: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 440: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 411: 409: 404: 399: 398:Hurricanehink 395: 391: 388: 386: 383: 378: 372: 369: 367: 364: 363: 341: 340:WP:INCOMPLETE 338: 337:WP:NOTCLEANUP 334: 331: 330: 326: 322: 318: 314: 309: 306: 302: 298: 294: 289: 286: 282: 278: 274: 269: 268: 267: 266: 262: 258: 247: 243: 240: 237: 233: 229: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 197: 194: 193:Find sources: 189: 185: 181: 178: 172: 168: 164: 160: 155: 151: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 129: 125: 122: 119: 115: 112: 110: 107: 105: 102: 101: 100: 98: 93: 84: 81: 79: 76: 69: 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1050: 1048: 1027: 967: 943: 934: 933: 922: 851: 808: 804: 787: 706: 686:WP:IMPERFECT 682: 628: 611: 593: 551: 547: 545: 544: 526: 500: 453: 441: 417:User:Chicdat 412: 389: 370: 344: 332: 253: 241: 235: 227: 220: 214: 208: 202: 192: 179: 90: 49: 47: 31: 28: 928:I'd really 655:as well as 550:. There is 442:Speedy Keep 371:Speedy keep 333:SPEEDY KEEP 218:free images 54:Nosebagbear 995:Jason Rees 759:WP:SOFIXIT 736:disruption 694:Lightburst 670:Jason Rees 421:WP:DPR#NAC 1055:talk page 859:Hurricane 816:Hurricane 665:Cristobal 37:talk page 1057:or in a 977:Database 959:Database 772:contribs 720:contribs 707:Draftify 612:Draftify 583:Database 548:Draftify 514:Adamant1 483:Database 177:View log 118:glossary 39:or in a 1033:AC5230 989:Chicdat 930:WP:SNOW 413:Comment 376:AC5230 224:WP refs 212:scholar 150:protect 145:history 95:New to 1015:(Talk) 948:Andrew 763:KN2731 740:Andrew 711:KN2731 661:Amanda 653:Amphan 641:Harold 637:Herold 599:Mangoe 594:delete 572:WP:NPA 510:WP:GNG 506:WP:ATD 458:Andrew 450:WP:ATD 446:policy 429:Stifle 392:. See 196:Google 154:delete 900:Hobit 870:Hobit 848:Hobit 835:Hobit 645:Sarai 532:Hobit 425:WP:SK 361:Focus 239:JSTOR 200:books 184:Stats 171:views 163:watch 159:links 16:< 1038:talk 999:talk 970:Chic 952:Chic 944:they 904:talk 889:talk 874:talk 854:Java 839:talk 811:Java 805:Keep 788:Keep 768:talk 744:talk 716:talk 698:talk 683:Keep 674:talk 668:war. 663:and 649:Tino 620:talk 603:talk 576:Chic 536:talk 518:talk 476:Chic 462:talk 433:talk 403:talk 390:Keep 381:talk 321:talk 301:talk 281:talk 261:talk 232:FENS 206:news 167:logs 141:talk 137:edit 58:talk 50:keep 973:dat 955:dat 892:) 742:🐉( 579:dat 558:or 479:dat 460:🐉( 456:" 406:) 246:TWL 175:– ( 1028:No 1001:) 906:) 876:) 841:) 770:· 746:) 718:· 700:) 676:) 659:, 651:, 647:, 643:, 639:, 622:) 605:) 538:) 520:) 464:) 435:) 323:) 315:. 303:) 295:. 283:) 275:. 263:) 226:) 169:| 165:| 161:| 157:| 152:| 148:| 143:| 139:| 60:) 997:( 991:: 987:@ 902:( 886:( 872:( 837:( 830:: 826:@ 795:E 792:Y 774:} 766:{ 722:} 714:{ 696:( 672:( 618:( 601:( 568:: 564:@ 546:* 534:( 516:( 431:( 400:( 358:m 355:a 352:e 349:r 346:D 319:( 299:( 279:( 259:( 250:) 242:· 236:· 228:· 221:· 215:· 209:· 203:· 198:( 190:( 187:) 180:· 173:) 135:( 120:) 116:( 56:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Nosebagbear
talk
08:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Tropical cyclones in 2010
Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2010
Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2010 (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Tropical cyclones in 2010
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.