Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural phenomenon


 * 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 and rename to List of natural phenomena. Any concerns related to the content or to criteria for the list can be addressed on the talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Natural phenomenon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't seem to be really notable. While many individual individual phenomena are clearly notable, the topic as a whole has nearly no mention in reliable sources. If you search for "natural phenomenon", you will find many lists of cool ones, as well as articles about specific phenomena, but little about the subject itself. Ypnypn (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did TAFI happen to help this article? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Everything that happens in Nature is a "natural phenomenon." It's impossible and pointless to list them all. -- 120.23.85.91 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Uncertain. I don't know how to improve it but yet I know it still looks bad. How should we improve that article? I have no idea how to improve. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, should we archive this article Natural phenomenon? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We should, and we should have a copy of Natural phenomenon to spare and we still haven't completed the other table. And plus, once this article is deleted every hyperlink of this would be red. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. Remember that arguments for and against deletion should make reference to implicit reasons that the article should exist on it's own. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that if this article is deleted, then how are we going to show the "TAFI accomplishment" of that article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - that article for deletion nomination was not deleted in 2006 or so, or even 4 months from the making of the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have not been through the 700,000 google results for "Natural phenomenon" to see how many mentions there are in reliable sources, but User:Ypnypn says he has found nearly no mentions, which at least implies he has found some. It seems to have about 200 views per day, which I expect is irrelevant, is not just a list and has a broad range of good images to illustrate the topic (several of which I added from commons, so I may have a COI in wanting to preserve the work). I have not read up the relevant guidelines yet.SovalValtos (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify my comment in the nomination, there are indeed many mentions of natural phenomena, but few or none are about "the topic as a whole". -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to mostly be useful as a navigational hub for specific types of natural phenomena, which is fine. I'm not quite sure how the non-list items were randomly collected or arranged by an expert as a comprehensive list, though, so clarifying the limitations of the topic might help. Earflaps (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of natural phenomenon (see below). This article is really a list article and renaming it would make that very clear.  As a list, it certainly would have its place in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If this ends up being consensus, the target page should be List of natural phenomena for grammar.  01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are correct. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, redirect and rename as per User:Whpq. 222.155.220.142 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I rather agree with User:120.23.85.91 that "It's impossible and pointless to list them all" so I am against renaming it List of natural phenomena which could become indigestible. It is better showing some broad categories illustrated by select examples and as a navigation hub.SovalValtos (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (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.