Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate of Rajasthan


 * 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 all. 4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Climate of Rajasthan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An article with no encyclopedia value with links cited that don't count as a source. One is to a news article that may not count as a reliable source, the other is just a webpage that is two charts, one from 2003 to 2014 of the highest and lowest temperature and rainfall data. The other of the period from 1971 to 2000. The article is nothing more than unsourced information and a picture gallery. Don't see the notability for this and the three below. GNG clearly is not met here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages over the same concerns as with the Rajasthan article: --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Climate of Tamil Nadu
 * Climate of Himachal Pradesh
 * Climate of Gujarat

I'm updating the nomination to include the following related articles over the same issues upon further examination of the sourcing and information:
 * Climate of Delhi
 * Climate of Mumbai
 * Climate of Bihar
 * Climate of West Bengal
 * Climate of Uttar Pradesh

These five have the same issues as the four nominated above as the majority of sources are about weather events and temperature. There is very little information about the climate of these regions as well. Articles about the weather don't qualify as being notable simply because it was a record amount of rainfall outside a storm. This falls under trivial information. GNG is not met here as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Starting with Climate of Rajasthan, most of the information is uncited, and should be removed. What remains could easily be folded into the appropriate main article. That would seem to argue for a merge, except that the information (temp and precip) is only about Jaipur, which already has that info and more in its Climate section. The same is true of the other three proposed deletions. If anyone sees any cited info they want to merge, go for it! Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing information for the sole reason that it is uncited is disruptive and does not help to build the encyclopaedia. One should have reason to suspect the information is dubious and make at least a cursory attempt to cite it oneself before considering removing it. SpinningSpark 21:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of the uncited info is dubious. How do you know what the busy tourist season is? or the exact temp range? It would be nice to try to check these out, bit it is not required. The onus is on the person wishing to keep the information. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the restorer if something is deleted, but just because you can delete something does not mean that you should. Lack of a citation does not automatically make the statement dubious.  There's a reason that policy does not say "all uncited material must be deleted".  Rather, WP:V encourages the person considering removal to try and provide a source themselves and the WP:REMOVAL essay is even more pertinent.  If you were arguing that information on temperature  or tourist season  was impossible to establish then it would be unverifiable and rightly removed, but that is not the case here. SpinningSpark 13:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I already noted, virtually all of the uncited info was questionable. Note the large warnings in the article about uncited material. It need not be "impossible to establish" to be removed. If it was so easy to verify, someone should have already done it. Hey, if you wanted, you could have already done so; you presumably read the article warnings before beginning this conversation. Problem solved! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete all such articles as appropriate. When I want to know about a place, I look at the article on that place. The weather is one of the things that I might want to read about. It should be in the main article, as it's a basic, fundamental piece of information about a country or region, and as a reader I don't want to be sent off on a trail of links over basics like that. Articles on countries/regions are usually fairly long, but with good subdivision and a good contents section, so quite a detailed description of the climate and seasons could be put into a typical country article without any harm. It would be extremely exceptional that the climate of a country was so notable independent of the country that it needed its own "personal" article. Elemimele (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all per WP:ARTN Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article and WP:NEXIST The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable and WP:AFD is not cleanup. The climate of a state is plainly notable, I am astonished that this is even being questioned.  There are plenty of book sources; Climate of Rajasthan State book published by Indian Meteorological Department, Rajasthan Geography has a 20-page chapter, Faunal Heritage of Rajasthan, India has a 32-page chapter.  I'm totally confident an equal amount of sourcing can be found for the other nominations. SpinningSpark 20:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all the articles, they just suffer from poor sourcing. The climate of a state and major cities are inherently notable — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case for states and territories of India then many of them wouldn't be redirects to sections about the climate or geography of the respective mainspace articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where the information should be located is a very different question from should the information be deleted and is not an issue best dealt with at AFD. That's a merge request/discussion which would normally take place on the article talk pages. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd argue a merge discussion would be inadequate too because I would bring up that we would have to merge every climate article related to a city, state, or territory per WP:NEUTRALITY if we were going down that route. If a major Indian city or a state doesn't qualify, why should a US or British city qualify? States, territories, and major cities are large enough areas to warrant their own climate articles. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep all Climate articles for Indian states and major cities clearly pass GNG; they have bad sourcing, but that's not a reason to delete them. The reasons mentioned for deleting or merging above are fundamentally flawed and sources do exist for these topics. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Himachal pradesh, Gujarat, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar pradesh are states with population in millions although they need more sources. I have not comment for the cities. -  SUN EYE 1  14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the population of these states. Don't understand your keep vote. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to put words into the user's mouth, but I think the point is that a state with a population of millions is large enough and important enough to write something meaningful about its climate. As opposed to "Climate of Puddletown" (population 1450). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but this isn't about the population and the effect of notability as a result of the former. This is about the subject matter of failing GNG in my view. Population has nothing to do with this. And population in this case is not a GNG requirement. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you should nominate every single British and US city climate article for deletion as well to have neutrality here. The India articles are in poor shape since they have fewer editors on our wiki. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You still want to claim this fails notability when a whole book has been written on the topic and two other books have large chapters on it? Clearly you have no idea what the notability requirements actually are.  Let me remind you A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  So how many more books beside the three I already noted above do you need before you agree that coverage is significant?  Here's some more; 53-page chapter, 4 pages, 12-page chapter, and this one is only about the tiger reserve, but still spends three pages on climate.  There are also academic papers written on the climate of Rajasthan . <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * " Clearly you have no idea what the notability requirements actually are". Hostility and assertions don't help. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither does asserting that GNG has not been met without a clear rationale behind it. Continuing to assert it without a rationale when evidence to the contrary has been provided, and without challenging that evidence in any way, is simply pig-headed. Telling you that you are mistaken is not hostility.  Please address the issue of whether the sources establish notability rather than complaining that you have been slighted in some way. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To me it seems quite a common sense that Climate of a 130,058 km2 (Tamil Nadu as of now) patch of land attracts GNG by definition, when combined that it is recognised politically, geographically, socially with an invisible "border" which we call a "state", and all the others nominated. All of us agree that the content is poor. And so does thousands of stubs many of whom lack any reference at all. If we go by your reasoning, it's high time we purge everything that is not sourced? — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly notable topic about the climate of a large area.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.