Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)


 * 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. Nominator withdraw (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I should start by noting I do not wish to delete the article, rather just to merge it in its entirety. Simply put, I do not believe the article is notable enough to exist. It was a weak tropical storm that lasted for two days without affecting land. There is only one source of information, anywhere, on this storm, which is the National Hurricane Center. Because of that, I believe it fails Notability. There are other sources that talk about the storm, possibly such as news stories while it was active or info on the entire hurricane season that happens to mention the storm, but none of the info on this specific storm has a reliable independent source, other than from the people at the National Hurricane Center that issued 12 advisories on a random bunch of clouds.

Usually, tropical cyclones are big enough or last enough time to affect land, or set a record to establish some sort of notability. Those storms have articles and aren't usually a problem. Storms like Gilma, and there are maybe a dozen other that fall into this category, are ones that I believe are not notable enough for an article. If it is merged, and the content might have to be summarized a bit due to undue weight, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have heard that any storm is notable enough for an article, which is clearly not true. If the same storm would have occurred 50 years ago, no would would have known about it. Think about this - if the same storm was not recognized by the National Hurricane Center, still no one would know about it. Should the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject really expect its writers to write meticulously about every bunch of clouds that a bureaucrat in an office decides to name? Personally I think it is a waste of time, since those storms are already covered in the hurricane season articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here was the merger discussion, until the author asked me to take it here, as he found the discussion pointless with a small group of people, or something. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Request withdraw. Sorry this was the wrong place for this. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Major point violation. The user did not get his way at the merge and is moving to delete the page in order to make way to meet the article percentage for featured topic. He is abusive processes to get more "featured" items, which can only be seen as a status symbol. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the first line? I'm not "abusive processes to get more "featured" items". I am trying to get more input. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your original merge proposal was unethical. This AfD is a furtherance of forum shopping to do that original unethical act. Featured items are not a status symbol. Editing is based on improving the Wiki. The things I wish I could say in response to your actions with this would get me banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close - This isn't the place to discuss a merge. That should be discussed on the articles talk page. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The author said, "If you want these articles merged or deleted, I encourage you to list them at AfD, as this discussion is pointless", when I tried to merge them. Just trying to get something done. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for merger discussions. Either way I will strongly oppose anything relating to merging or deleting this article. It is a good article, notable, well referenced. There is no reason at all to delete it. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would RFC be a better place? And as I said, I don't want to delete it, just merge it, because I don't think it's notable enough. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles talk page would be a better place, as I said above. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, then I'll just keep it there. Sorry for any inconvenience. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close- AfD is not the place to suggest a merge. Reyk  YO!  21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close If you do not wish to delete an article, please don't start a deletion discussion for it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:50, 22 March 2009 (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.