Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Australian Rainfall Records
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
2022 Australian Rainfall Records
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2022 Australian Rainfall Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although apparently true information,
a Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. The information is however useful, and should be merged to the appropriate articles already in existence. It's me... Sallicio!
15:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draftspace - potential usefulness for merging or standalone, but IMO should be moved out of mainspace asap. It fails several standards in style and referencing, and looks unreliable for that reason alone. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP and draft space is just an elephants' graveyard. SpinningSpark 13:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)]
- not an indiscriminate compendium of all possible knowledge. Cheers! It's me... Sallicio!13:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Those comments were more a response to Laterthanyouthink than to the nomination rationale. Poor style, even poor referencing style, is a cleanup issue and does not in any way indicate unreliability as claimed. I strongly think P&G are on my side on that point. As for NOTEVERYTHING, that guideline covers a wide range of issues and you have failed to indicate which one applies here. I certainly don't think that rainfall breaking centuries old records is indiscriminate information, especially when it is having such severe effects. The nom then goes on to invoke usefullness as a reason for merging. Useful is not a good rationale for keeping information on Wikipedia either as, or part of, an article per WP:USEFUL. Further suggestion a merge without identifying a target is strongly deprecated here because it impossible to assess how sensible a merge would be. SpinningSpark 15:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)]
- Those comments were more a response to Laterthanyouthink than to the nomination rationale. Poor style, even poor referencing style, is a cleanup issue and does not in any way indicate unreliability as claimed. I strongly think P&G are on my side on that point. As for NOTEVERYTHING, that guideline covers a wide range of issues and you have failed to indicate which one applies here. I certainly don't think that rainfall breaking centuries old records is indiscriminate information, especially when it is having such severe effects. The nom then goes on to invoke usefullness as a reason for merging. Useful is not a good rationale for keeping information on Wikipedia either as, or part of, an article per
- Delete. Best to merge content into place or flood articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any editor proposing a merge should mention a specific article target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 11 November 2022 (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.