Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Beatriz (2005)


 * 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. Like is often said, merging is not an exercise of the deletion tool, and there's no consensus here to do so. That discussion can of course continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Beatriz (2005)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:TROP is currently going through anotability debate. The article being listed was a short-lived storm that has no outside sources from the National Hurricane Center (NHC). Wikipedia is not a new report and all news reports were when the storms was active. Although Beatriz formed in June for the first time since 2003, it is actually a routine event (there have been season with Category 5 intensity storms in June). As such, it fails WP:N and I am nominating this for deletion even though I will have no major objection for the article being kept. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. It's the same case as Tropical Storm Norma (2005). --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a standard almanac entry, and a pillar of Wikipedia is that it contains elements of an almanac. Why is a weather geek nominating weather articles for deletion, then saying he really doesn't care if it is deleted? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2005 Pacific hurricane season no reason why it should be kept or deleted. Secret account 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMHO, any named tropical system meets WP:N by the fact that it is a named tropical system. WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:INSERTYETANOTHERNOTABILITYSTANDARDHERE are being used as clubs with which to beat articles, and this disturbs me greatly. Is Wikipedia running out of server space? I might be mistaken, but I don't think it is. Given that, and that Wikipedia is not paper, why are so many articles that are verifiable using reliable sources being deleted - especially this mass deletion of tropical cyclone articles? The very simple reason seems to be they just don't like having them around, and use "notability" as an excuse to be rid of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the fact that it is a named system means it is notable? Should Tropical Storm Baker (1951) really have an article? Even for something more recent, what about Tropical Storm Damienne (2000)? (in the south Indian Ocean) Simply there being information doesn't make it notable. It's the same issue as fancruft, why there aren't articles on every Pokemon anymore. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Both of those should have articles. Comparing tropical systems to Pokemon fancruft is a complete apples-to-oranges comparison, and it's saddening that such a comparsion would even be made. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no possible way an article could be made on either of them, I'm just starting with that (they would be far too stubby). As for Pokemon vs. TC, no, I think it's a legitimate argument. Pokemon is a billion dollar series, and I'm positive that more people know of Pichu or Venusaur than 99% of all tropical cyclones, and neither of them have articles. You can't say that just because it was named means it is notable. As User:Jason Rees said, other meteorological phenomena are named, such as European Wind Storms or European High Pressure areas. The reason that storms as Beatriz, as well as Baker or Damienne, is that there isn't any independent coverage outside of the warning areas. That is the crux of it, not whether we like having them around. Hell, I've proposed a few of my own articles to be merged, even though I liked them. If no one other than the warning center had anything on the storm, then it isn't notable, and we shouldn't bother covering those storms. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richard Arthur Norton and the Bushranger. I tend to see named meteorological systems as something intrinsically notable and that ought to be featured in the encyclopedia even if it doesn't strictly follow GNG. Minor ones can be merged in list articles perhaps, but that's an editorial decision. The content seems verifiable. I would err on the side of maintaining the information and discussing on how to reorganize it perhaps. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:39, 10 January 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.