Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American spring


 * 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 Delete by consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 North American spring

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SYNTH. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Um how is that WP:SYNTH? It is like the winter pages, only for spring, which is usually where some of the severe weather occurs AND I think it could be worthy of mention on it. I would like to see why you think so and fyi in the future try to make a longer reason for the proposed deletion. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I disagree with the rationale. There are soft and hard definitions for what qualifies as spring, and there are meteorological and astronomical definitions. This article complies with the astronomical definition. There are issues with the article, and you may have a case for deletion based on those issues, but again, I do not believe this rationale is sound or that WP:SYNTH applies. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, not only do I not believe that WP:SYNTH does not apply, it simply 'does not' apply. Read: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I cannot come up with any way someone could construe this as applying to the discussed article. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete ~ I can't find some sources but there no news. it's might hoax would be speedy delete. ~ Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  00:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What? The subject is not a hoax. Spring objectively exists. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also adding on, how is there "no news". There is definitely media coverage on the tornado outbreaks as well as tropical storms Bonnie, Colin and Danielle. Therefore, I oppose the deletion. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those storms are already covered by Tornadoes of 2016 and 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. The "winter" article is a technically misnamed analogue to those articles, not a reason why we would need this article alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying spring doesn't exist. Junior5a is questioning whether the existence of spring requires an encyclopedia article about every individual year's own proprietary spring as a named standalone topic, not whether spring exists as a concept. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Junior5a pretty clearly said "it's might hoax." I think that sounds more like what I said than what you said, in that it seems to question the existence of 2016 spring in North America. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm pretty sure that English is not Junior5a's first language, based on how they expressed their thought — so they can't be held to the same "clarity of expression" standards by which you or I would be judged. And secondly, nobody would ever seriously claim that the basic existence of spring was a hoax — there's simply no serious reason to believe anybody actually thinks such an easily disproven thing. So I stand by my interpretation. Plus I've been around Wikipedia for about a decade longer than you have, so I have a lot more experience in trying to suss out what people really meant in circumstances where they might have expressed themselves unclearly. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose this could fall under Wikipedia's role as an almanac. However, I see no similar pages (2016 European Spring or 2015 North American spring for instance). I think this should be discussed more generally with the relevant Wikiprojects, rather than at a specific AfD. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; the fact that seasons exist does not inherently mean that we require four separate articles per year about each individual season. The winter articles are not technically about the winter itself — they're about the snowstorm and ice storm record, in ways that are more analogous to an already-existing and already-accepted scheme of organizing spring/summer storms through things like Tornadoes of 2016 and 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. We simply don't need to start creating a novel scheme of "2016 spring/summer/fall" articles as an alternate organization of content that we already have in other places — the notability is in the storm record, not the mere fact that spring, summer, fall and winter exist, and the storm record content is already organized as storm records. Technically, the winter articles should be renamed as "winter storm season" instead of just "winter" — but the winter articles already have their spring/summer/fall analogues through the "tornadoes" and "hurricane season" sets, so they don't need to be matched by "spring", "summer" or "autumn" articles that duplicate the existing content. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is just a (quite arbitrary) list of severe weather events that happened to occur during the spring season, and as Bearcat mentioned, we already have existing organizational structures for tornado and tropical cyclone articles. The most important issue is that the scope of the article is simply unworkable - this article discusses "spring" in purely meteorological terms, but lots of other things happened in spring 2016, too (no mention is made of any astronomical, agricultural, social, political, sports, fashion, economic, or academic occurrences, to name a few). –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:N. There's nothing per se peculiar or special about any given spring season on any given continent. Notable meterological events are covered in the respective tornado and hurricane season articles, which are part of long established and organized article series. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand arguing notability, but as I said above, I don't see how anyone can make an argument of WP:SYNTH. There aren't any unpublished conclusions being reached in the subject article. Dustin  ( talk ) 15:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The SYNTH is in taking a bunch of unrelated weather events and trying to unite them into one artificial topic. If we're the only source that draws a link between all the listed events, that's the very definition of original synthesis. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a series of weather events, most of which are independently notable enough to have their own articles anyway. This article serves no function, and I'm not sure it ever could. It'll likely stay in the current shape it's in, and it'll just encourage other continental season articles to be made, none of which really should have articles. The title doesn't mention meteorology at all, so an independent reader might assume it's about the season in the continent, not exclusive to the weather. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:52, 25 October 2016 (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.