Talk:Cyclone Nisarga

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... I definitely understand criteria for new articles creation and a simple Google Search for this upcoming cyclone will answer the question Google Search. ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (It is a significant weather event. It is also the largest cyclonic storm to hit Mumbai in a century.The article name is agreed by regional meteorological organisations and is an internationally recognised name.) --Psanu (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... it is an upcoming cyclone that is going to landfall in the state of Maharashtra on Wednesday dated 2nd June, 2020 --Debjyoti Gorai 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (your reason here) --Njoy deep (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Its an ongoing topic and needs constant updates

A (few) question(s) regarding these "contested deletion" sections
Where's the deletion? What's this "This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because..."? Where did these template statements come from? Why are we worrying about speedy deletion? ~ AC5230  talk  19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

edits reverted unnecessarily
can you please elaborate, why you reverted the "current cyclone infobox"?  ❯❯❯  S A H A   05:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You entered wrong information; for starters, we only use multiples of 5 knots. 68 knots did not make any sense. Misinformation about storms affecting land, even if unintentional, is highly frowned upon. --Jasper Deng (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * okay, so only 1 info was incorrect. but, why you removed the whole template? and other infos were absolutely correct. intentionally removal of content?  ❯❯❯  S A H A   12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They weren't correct either, for example it wasn't a severe cyclonic storm at that time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

merge?
article is just skeletal and nobody has updated the sections for a while Fleur  De  Odile  13:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is more than the section in the season article. Also, it was a landfalling hurricane-equivalent storm, hitting a major metropolitan area. The article is more than just bare bones, and there is a lot of potential for expansion. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It will be expanded over time as the hurricane progresses. Also it hit a major metropolitan area and the article is not that bad on its own. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The cyclone didn’t actually hit a major metropolitan area, it passed south of the most populated areas. The article is just bare, outdated, and the impacts would fit in the season article more than this. You can’t make more than 1 paragraph of impacts. Plus, the article has several problems and if anything should be merged to a draft as it is not ready for anyone yet. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hurricanehink. 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 20:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the first two commenters, and just because it is "just skeletal and nobody has updated the sections for a while" doesn't mean we have to merge the article to the season article. Typhoon2013  (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hurricanehink, TDKR Chicago 101 and Typhoon2013. As a major contributor to the article, I do intend to contribute more (with limited resources now, expect the same soon)- doesn't mean that the article can disappear just because it looks like a draft now. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Opppose per Karthiknadr and Hurricanhink. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a valid reason to merge, and in light of your recent history, I reiterate my suggestion that you avoid the subject of merging articles for a good while: don't propose merges or carry them out unless someone else has already started a discussion resulting in clear consensus in favor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)