Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Norma (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   delete. just an off topic comment to the close but surely the way to handle marginally/nn stiorms like this is a yearly list? Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Norma (2005)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject is currently in the midst of a notability debate, and the main issue is that there hasn't been much discussion from outside of the project. To test the waters, I present a short-lived tropical storm that affected no one. According to the notability guidelines, an article must have significant, independent sources. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a news source. As of now, all of the sources in the article are from the National Hurricane Center (NHC). As a little background information, the NHC issued advisories on Norma and likewise issued all significant publications on the event. As a result, it is hardly independent from the storm (which wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be notable, if the NHC wasn't involved).

There are likely to be significant sources on storms that don't affect people, as tropical storms routinely get mentioned by the Associated Press and other news agencies. That didn't even happen for Norma, as there are only four news articles while it was active, one of which not even on this storm. Here is an example of a news excerpt, and notice how it says "according to the National Hurricane Center". As the storm didn't affect land, there is no way there could be any sources on the storm that don't stem from the NHC. Additionally, look at Notability (events). In the context of Norma being a single event, one can tell how non-notable it was, as it hasn't been in any news articles since the year it occurred.

In all, Norma was a very routine event. It formed, and it dissipated, as many other storms do every year. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC) All I am saying is that you can argue otherwise, but that argument is weak and should be avoided here. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. The article/storm does not meet WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This may be a very bad case of WP:NOTNEWS as the article is written with entirely primary sources from the storm warning centre. WP:EVENT states that:"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I would even add storms to that list. Storms are just that – routine – and shouldn't be treated as some kind of god-like thing. All in all, agree with nominator. (Can I also point out that WP:AFD isn't for merge discussion; see WP:Proposed mergers for that.) Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 00:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My whole argument about the procedural framework in the discussion linked from above was that these discussions are more about whether to delete and redirect than to merge per se. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete per nom, but won't object to the page being kept as you can argue that it passes WP:N. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you argue that it passes WP:N? My whole argument above was that it doesn't pass it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Erick 07 was kept because some editors (myself included) thought it passed WP:N. YE   Tropical   Cyclone  22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment' I'm undecided on the notability of the subject, but disagree strongly on the reasoning used to dismiss the National Hurricane Center as a source. Sports magazines and columns would not exist without sports, but that does not mean they are not independent sources. History magazines and history textbooks would not exist without history, but that does not mean they are not independent sources. Movies reviews would not exist without movies, but that does not mean they are not independent sources. The National Hurricane Center would not exist without hurricanes, but that does not mean it is not an independent source. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not dismissing it as a source, just as an independent source. Even if the storm existed, but it was not warned by the NHC, then it would not be covered by any sources today. In contrast, if Katrina wasn't warned by the NHC, there would still be tons of coverage due to the high impact. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (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.