Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes (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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I believe this page should be deleted because there isn't really anything notable about Category 4. Category 5 hurricanes are at the top of the scale and rare, but Category 4's? Not so much. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 2008 AfD discussion spelled out why this list is valid, and while consensus can change, but I don't see any reason why it should change in this case. This is a list of notable hurricanes (all of them bluelinks, most of them with their own articles) grouped in a useful and meaningful way.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe the category works better to link them together. A Category 4 isn't notable on it's own. Unlike Category 5 hurricanes (which are the top of a scale and notable in that regard) and major hurricanes (which is a broad group of strong hurricanes), there isn't anything objectively special about Category 4 hurricanes. That is, none of the information in the article is actual limited to a Category 4 hurricane. It's all generic info for major hurricanes, sans what is derived from the Atlantic hurricane best track. If there was an independent agency listing the Category 4 hurricanes and providing some statistical analysis, as well as more information on the structure of Category 4 hurricanes (as opposed to Cat. 3 or 5), I'd be inclined to keep, but as far as I know, that information is simply not available. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.YE  Pacific   Hurricane  15:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A once/twice/thrice-a-year occurrence should be enough to warrant notability, and in my opinion, this page links Category 4 hurricanes better than a category would.  HurricaneFan 25  16:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does a much better job at linking Category 4 hurricanes together than the category does. As someone who doesn't know much about hurricanes, I appreciate the context that this page brings and the way that it organizes the information. Jncraton (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The information is notable. Jab843 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I echo the points raised here by Hurricanehink. I would be convinced otherwise if there were similarly produced lists of cat 4 hurricanes, as there are for cat 5 hurricanes. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – A discriminate list of notable category 4 hurricanes, with references. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, satisfies all our criteria for lists. It's easy to decide whether a topic deserves to be included in the list, the topic is NPOV, references can easily be provided, the subjects themselves fit our notability definition, and categories and lists can work together.  Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per Hurricanehink.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I prefer to delete lists that are truly redundant to categories, despite the wording of WP:CLN, but in this case the list provides information and formatting that no category could.  In such cases lists are in fact complementary not redundant and should not be deleted.  Eluchil404 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't. The list contains no additional information than what is found in Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale or is a synthesis of data from the article itself. It includes no objective studies or articles on Category 4 hurricanes themselves. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But I was comparing the list to the category and not other articles. Sure the general information on Cat 4 storms is found in the general articles but the list of hurricanes in chronological (not alphabetic) order with additional info like location of landfall and minimum central pressure is, as far as I can tell, unique to this list.  There is no requirement that lists contain information not present in other articles just that they present it in a different and useful way.  IMO, this list meets those criteria by doing things a category can't.  The only concern would be that it is more logical to group storms by year rather than by strength since Cat 4 storms are rarely considered as a separate group.  This argument has some force, but is not dispositive since wikipedia is not paper and we can list them both ways.  Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The hurricanes get coverage. Many blue links to category 4 Atlantic hurricanes in the article.  And the list article offers information useful for people wishing to know more information than you could get from just looking at a Wikipedia category.   D r e a m Focus  23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per overwhelming consensus across two afds now. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicate content and/or redirect to Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not an overwhelming consensus remember WP is not a vote.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While I was tempted to wait and be the closing admin, I feel I am sufficiently inclusionist when it comes to meteorology articles that I'm somewhat biased towards keeping this. All in all, I agree with Eluchil404's summary of things with regards to it being redundant to the category. I also don't really feel that this lacks sufficient notability...category 4 hurricanes aren't exactly trivial, dime a dozen things. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ultimately, Eluchil404 hits the problem with this nomination straight in the head: it assumes that for the list to exist, it must provide some sort of scientific analysis on Category 4 tropical cyclones. (In fact, I posit that such an analysis would be better placed in an article about major hurricanes.) That level of analysis is not necessary by any means, as the additional chronological and intensity information provided by the list make it superior to a category, at least from a navigational perspective. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:34, 17 November 2011 (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.