Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina (2nd nomination)

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.

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina (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)

Over the last 8 years since the original AfD discussion, little has been done to improve this list. In my opinion it is a posterchild for

• Comment Per
  WP:DP, number of visits not an appropriate reason for deletion. ---- GTNO6 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anemic
  WP:NOTSTATS cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The scope of this article is unclear, particularly in the post-storm part. The writing is also poor and disorganized. I cannot imagine this will be any more useful to readers than the main article on the storm and its meteorological history article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whichever events are significant enough to be included in here (and determining that alone will be enough to spark a big debate) are already going to be in at least one of the numerous subarticles, and throwing them all together with no context or structure is not helpful to readers in any way. In short:
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, same rationale as my delete vote last time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  talk) 19:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I don’t believe there is much (if any) content that doesn’t exist in one of the myriad other Katrina articles, which already discuss the storm history, the evacuations, the damage, the political effects, and Hurricane Rita. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Mhawk. The proponent did not bring valid arguments for elimination, and the article is properly referenced.
  WP:DP. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What about the argument that the content exists in other articles? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I addressed this in my argument. On its face, the assertion that the content exists elsewhere is an argument for a merge and/or a redirect, not deletion. Also, can you point to the article that this is a duplicate of? I'm not able to find one. —
      talk
      ) 02:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC
      • Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Preparations for Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina disaster relief, Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, Reconstruction of New Orleans. All of these are in-depth topics that go into much more detail than this timeline, which stops around 37 days after the storm. All of those other articles cover the period well beyond October 2005 (and some of the 17 years since then), much better than this incomplete and redundant timeline. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."

  I am also supporting retention per Postdlf (talk · contribs), who wrote this in 2014 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina:

  what the nominator sees a minus—that this combines, in chronological order, information found at multiple articles on Katrina—I see as a plus. A timeline is going to be most useful when it can condense an important sequence of events that are divided over multiple articles (I count at least eighteen articles just about Katrina and its aftermath), and where that sequence is of utmost importance to the subject. What happened when, in terms of the development and track of the storm, preparation efforts, when levees broke and areas were flooded, and what the rescue effort and other response was at each stage, etc., etc., is critical to an understanding of Katrina scientifically and historically. Really all we have here from the nomination and the sole "delete" !vote so far is the mistaken belief that "content forks" are an inherently bad thing and complaints about mere cleanup issues.

  Cunard (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I also believe that a wiki page does not deserve to be deleted based on view counts as previously mentioned. The point of Wikipedia is to be a Encyclopedia of knowledge, not to count how many views a page gets. The argument also does not go into detail of why the article is unable to be salvaged in it's current state. No article is perfect and that's why people have to ability fix and or change pages make the information better for the topic in hand. Knowledge should always tried to be saved as a default. Hurricane Katrina happened almost 17 years ago, which makes a bigger reason to protect this page as lots of this info would be lost if a deletion happened. Until there is more reason to delete this page, the page is still fixable by future edits, even if there hasn't been any for a while. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator request for withdrawal — While I still believe there is little use for this article, the arguments put forth by those in favor of keeping are convincing that there might be some merit to this article and outright deletion is not the correct course of action. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 15 May 2022 (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.