Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global storm activity of 2006-2007

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of 2006-2007

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have stayed undecided over whether to nominate this for AFD but today decided I should throw it out there for a community decision. Content that was plit from this article was previously deleted under quite a conclusive AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non_Winter_storms_of_2004–2007. The concerns on that page were that this sort of article may be Original Research and consist of mainly non-notable events. Further more it was suggested that the content would be better (if it were retained) in articles about the regions or types of storms. I really can't call on this one :) Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - Snow Storm in East Asia (and his new account) have put in a lot of work into this article - which is one reason I hesitated to nominate it. In my mind the ideal situation would be the extraction of any encyclopedic information into regional/topical articles and then the removal of the page. This sort of page (list of storms etc.) is more applicable for an external site. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aggregating this type of information on a planetary scale is quite relevant in a modern encyclopedia. — C M B J 19:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that this falls easily under WP:OR (it's synthesis of data). More importantly if you read the page a lot of the content does not really seem notable. example: Heavy rainstorms sweep over Bamako in Mali on August the 6th[8]. If you click through to the reference it is a travel diary that mentions a storm on the date in question. Unfortunately it is a not uncommon type of storm (they happen globally on the same scale all the time), no one died, no damage appears to have occured etc. The vast majority of the page is synthesise original research into fairly minor events. Even the tropical cyclones mentioned are pretty minor. To make matters worse most of the actual notable storm activity from that period is absent - instead that is in the correct place, regional articles :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An overal sinopsys page is a good way of getting to understand things from 'global' perspective.--86.29.68.35 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split into single year articles as I previously suggested. Also needs major cleanup to remove all the unencyclopedic language "tragic" etc. An overview without having to know about particular storm types is useful, but a single calendar year is the logical unit. (some southern hemisphere cyclones might end up getting covered in two adjacent articles, which doesn't matter). dramatic (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (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.