Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2010 (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.

The result was keep. 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. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2010

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP No valid reason given for deletion.
WP:INCOMPLETE 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. Dream Focus 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep...concurring with Dream Focus. ~ AC5230 talk 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Tropical cyclones in 2019 for what the article could eventually look like. Stub class articles shouldn't be deleted just because they require some work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion was closed at 20:49 on 6 June by
WP:SK, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep 99% of our articles are incomplete and it's our clear
WP:ATD also states clearly that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd say 100%. 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 13:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completenessness is a requirement for featured status and those so few articles which have reached that level have been formally agreed to be complete.

Delete with recreation or Draftify 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
WP:GNG. 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. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

move to draft 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. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify. There is absolutely no reason why to delete an article just because it needs a little improvement. I propose that we move this to

~~WP:NPA on your talk page. 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 13:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply

]

delete 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 has created a huge union list of all cyclones for all time, tens of thousands of entries. The whole thing is just make-work . Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Draft space - 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,
Cristobal 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 war.Jason Rees (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
WP:NOTCLEANUP. 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. Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify. 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. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 mainspace. Draftification is just
disruption, adding no value and putting obstacles in the way of improvement. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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 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
WP:SOFIXIT I may try addressing these myself if I can find the time. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Hink and honestly draft space is kinda pointless in my view at least, considering there's already a defined article.
Pacific ^Hurricane 15:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as long as people are ready to work on it. Java Hurricane 15:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JavaHurricane: 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 involved seems pretty large and it's been in this state for a while. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Hobit, 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. Java Hurricane 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  You don't think someone could reasonably think there were no Tropical cyclones in March of 2010 from the article as it is? Hobit (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I added a tag to expand the section. Now no one will be confused whether the article is incomplete or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I really don't think that's enough, but I appear to be in the minority. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and quickly improve (moved from draftify)I'd really
WP:SNOW-close this. Just because an article is incomplete doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Using HotCat, I added it to Category:Tropical cyclone articles needing attention. Seriously, there are over 2.5 million stubs around Wikipedia. Do they need to all be nominated for deletion? No! I've changed from draftify to keep based on Andrew's concerns about drafts, but still, I'm not letting this be deleted. 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 11:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, we've only got one person for delete. Can someone SpeedyKeep-close this? 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: No - have some patience and let the AFD run its course.Jason Rees (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think they would learn from this... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No - Rome wasn't built in a (half a) week. (It was built in a millenium.^[1]^{[citation needed]} It won't be that long. Shouldn't be more than a month.) Nor will be this AFD. ~ AC5230 talk 18:20, 12 June 2020 (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.