Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina (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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 00:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Over the last 8 years since the original AfD discussion, little has been done to improve this list. In my opinion it is a posterchild for WP:COATRACK as that is the premise of the article, an indiscriminate listing of the progression of events during and following Katrina. While a monumental event, the detail potential usefulness of this article is pretty limited. Over the last 90 days, this list has averaged just 47 daily views compared to the primary article's 2,531 daily average, indicating very limited interest in it. Some of the other sub-articles of niche interest have fewer views, they adequately expand upon content in a meaningful way. While there are innumerable sources covering Hurricane Katrina in the nearly 17 years since it happened, a timeline of these events ending just two months after really doesn't serve much purpose. The important aspect of these events can be soundly covered in the numerous other (probably excessive) sub-articles related to the topic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:DP, number of visits not an appropriate reason for deletion. GTNO6 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment,  and Lists.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete anemic WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTNEWS article with a lot of WP:NOTSTATS cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The scope of this article is unclear, particularly in the post-storm part. The writing is also poor and disorganized. I cannot imagine this will be any more useful to readers than the main article on the storm and its meteorological history article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whichever events are significant enough to be included in here (and determining that alone will be enough to spark a big debate) are already going to be in at least one of the numerous subarticles, and throwing them all together with no context or structure is not helpful to readers in any way. In short: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, same rationale as my delete vote last time. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. That the nominator has done little to improve the page is not a valid deletion reason, nor (as correctly notes) is the number of views. The consensus at the prior AfD found that this was an acceptable WP:SPINOUT of Hurricane Katrina—in other words, the Hurricane Katrina article would simply be too big to incorporate all of the encyclopedic content that is relevant. And the topic itself passes WP:GNG: USA Today, National Geographic, PBS News, The Guardian, Deseret News, the AP, and many others have provided significant coverage of the chronology of Katrina (including, at minimum, its near aftermath). Arguments for deletion above (besides the erroneous nomination) includes the vaguest of WP:VAGUEWAVEs (arguments in which the editor provides no motivation for citing particular shortcuts), an argument that the content of the article is not well-organized and that the scope of the aftermath of Katrina is unclear, and an argument that the coverage is already going to be somewhere else on Wikipedia. I don't feel a need to respond to the vaguest of vague waves, since it contributes little to the discussion. With respect to the argument that the article is poorly written and its scope is unclear: the scope of the article is made quite clear from sources (which tend to terminate their timelines at around the same time) and that the article content can be improved through editing is not a valid deletion reason per WP:DEL-CONTENT. Similarly, if the nominator is concerned that editors are inserting unrelated information (a-la-WP:COATRACK) and that this will be contentious to remove (a-la-KN2731), then they could try to remove the information through editing before making a declaration that the article cannot be salvaged; editing is certainly possible and it does not appear to have been attempted based upon the page's edit history. And, the nominator's argument that The important aspect of these events can be soundly covered in the numerous other (probably excessive) sub-articles related to the topic supports a merge not a deletion. Overall, the arguments for deletion are not based in policy and largely should be discarded along those lines, while the article clearly meets the relevant notability guideline. Against this background, the policy-based arguments support keeping the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe there is much (if any) content that doesn’t exist in one of the myriad other Katrina articles, which already discuss the storm history, the evacuations, the damage, the political effects, and Hurricane Rita. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per 's strong arguments. Mhawk10 has shown that "timeline of Hurricane Katrina" passes Notability, which says (my bolding): "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as 'List of Xs' or 'Xs') is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Timeline of Hurricane Katrina is a chronological list of "the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it" (quoting from the how-to guide Timeline). It is not a duplicate of any other article because no other article aims to present a chronological history of Hurricane Katrina. I view the timeline article as complementary to all the other articles. The article is well-sourced but can be further improved through more sourcing (as some parts of it are unsourced) and through expansion to cover a longer time period. The article's deficiencies are not a policy-based reason for deletion. From Editing policy, "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." I am also supporting retention per, who wrote this in 2014 at Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina: "what the nominator sees a minus—that this combines, in chronological order, information found at multiple articles on Katrina—I see as a plus. A timeline is going to be most useful when it can condense an important sequence of events that are divided over multiple articles (I count at least eighteen articles just about Katrina and its aftermath), and where that sequence is of utmost importance to the subject. What happened when, in terms of the development and track of the storm, preparation efforts, when levees broke and areas were flooded, and what the rescue effort and other response was at each stage, etc., etc., is critical to an understanding of Katrina scientifically and historically. Really all we have here from the nomination and the sole 'delete' !vote so far is the mistaken belief that 'content forks' are an inherently bad thing and complaints about mere cleanup issues." Cunard (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Mhawk. The proponent did not bring valid arguments for elimination, and the article is properly referenced. WP:COATRACK is an essay, that is to say that the text reflects only the conviction of some editors, with no consensus on its application in the community. In addition number of visits not an appropriate reason for deletion, per WP:DP. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the argument that the content exists in other articles? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I addressed this in my argument. On its face, the assertion that the content exists elsewhere is an argument for a merge and/or a redirect, not deletion. Also, can you point to the article that this is a duplicate of? I'm not able to find one. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC
 * Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Preparations for Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina disaster relief, Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, Reconstruction of New Orleans. All of these are in-depth topics that go into much more detail than this timeline, which stops around 37 days after the storm. All of those other articles cover the period well beyond October 2005 (and some of the 17 years since then), much better than this incomplete and redundant timeline. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I also believe that a wiki page does not deserve to be deleted based on view counts as previously mentioned. The point of Wikipedia is to be a Encyclopedia of knowledge, not to count how many views a page gets. The argument also does not go into detail of why the article is unable to be salvaged in it's current state. No article is perfect and that's why people have to ability fix and or change pages make the information better for the topic in hand. Knowledge should always tried to be saved as a default. Hurricane Katrina happened almost 17 years ago, which makes a bigger reason to protect this page as lots of this info would be lost if a deletion happened. Until there is more reason to delete this page, the page is still fixable by future edits, even if there hasn't been any for a while. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator request for withdrawal &mdash; While I still believe there is little use for this article, the arguments put forth by those in favor of keeping are convincing that there might be some merit to this article and outright deletion is not the correct course of action. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 15 May 2022 (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.