Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion and related pages


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete all. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and there has been no serious claim that these pages manifestly benefit encyclopedic coverage. Xoloz 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion and related pages
Nomination includes Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion, Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/June Tropical Discussion, Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/July Tropical Discussion, and Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/August Tropical Discussion

Delete. WP:NOT a discussion forum, these "predictions" are only partially scientific and have no value to the article. In addition, Wikipedia's Tropical cyclone articles have been mentioned in by a reputable scientific publication in this field, these would draw a bad name to them. Nilfanion (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Chacor 15:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- any evidence of the claim by the scientists being true because i cant find it in any of the talk pages or its archives. Storm05 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Chacor 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gary Pidgget mentions using wikipedia as source but he does not critizie or repute it. Storm05 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. He mentioned some articles that he thought were good. We'd like to keep that here. There's no point for the discussions. If you want to discuss things that might or not develop by looking at a blob of convection, go to a Hurricane forum. This site is about existing storms, and storms that have potential per the NHC (invests). Delete all of them. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated on Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season, I doubt the average person who is linked through this site is going to discover this and take it seriously. Any intelligent person should know that these are not official predictions and merely express the opinions of the users. bob rulz 08:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've never liked them either. Delete. Tito xd (?!?) 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wouldn't mind seeing these go. Wikipedia is not Storm2k - any discussion here should be on actual storms or invests. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, if you plan to get rid of these, get rid of the EPAC versions, as well. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Spinning them off into subpages does not do anybody any harm. If people don't want to look at it, they don't have to, as they are on subpages. Anybody who does not want to be involved in these discussions does not have to be. In addition, I don't believe that talking about these potential areas of development in the Atlantic is any different than talking about an INVEST (which is, by the way, also a "potential area for development"). bob rulz 08:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the problem with AoI's (which these pages cover), is that they frequently are not a "potential area for development" but "lets beat the professionals at their own game". If you read a typical AoI in the May discussion it is "I saw a swirl of clouds its a TC!". INVESTs are potential areas for development which typically return (low) Dvorak readings. An AoI is pretty much guaranteed to score "TOO WEAK". INVESTs are also designated by professional meteorologists, as opposed to Wikipedians, who actually make some assessment about the chance of development. The discussion on the main pages does typically refer to models and the like, these don't.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While in their present state AoIs aren't always useful, I still believe that they can provide some good discussion. I don't believe that it's to beat the NHC to their own game; I never feel like that in those rare times when I post there (note that I hardly ever post there). Also, AoIs still have room for improvement; we need to provide easier-to-find links to development conditions in the Atlantic, and then people should go to those pages and assess the conditions to see if it is a potential area for development. There's still some out-of-hand discussions there, and there probably always will be a bit of it, but I see room for improvement in the AoI "system" to the point of them becoming fairly reasonable "guesses" in the majority of cases. bob rulz 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm changing my mind after reading bob rulz' explanation. While I wouldn't mind seeing them go, I also don't really think they're doing any harm in staying. Maybe move it to something in the project namespace where things are a little more relaxed. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is deleted /predictions and /betting pools should be deleted as well, which would be silly Cryomaniac 13:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How would getting rid of useless subpages be silly? Chacor 13:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the sense that no-one has a problem with the other subpages, I was saying that if you remove these you may as well remove them all, and the other two shouldn't be removed. If that makes sense I applaud you. I just think it would be silly ok... Cryomaniac 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't seen the huge discussion we have had over all the subpages then. Chacor 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if they are not useful. I haven't seen anyone suggest that they are useful in that a storm article may want to mention an AOL doing something unusual before it became an invest. If there was a possibility of that then there might be a rational reason for keeping them until say 3 weeks after the month end. With regard to predictions and betting pools, I think these could be useful but only if done at an appropriate place. At the moment, I don't trust any bet because I cannot see whether any bettors are doing well without a lot of work and most of the bets seem too alarmist. Instead, I would like to encourage the bettors to go to somewhere like [www.ideosphere.com Foresight Exchange] then people will be able to see how they are doing with their bets and also see a market consensus. crandles 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is the best MfD I have ever seen. Discussing actual storms has always been extremely useful; spending this much digital ink on babbling about random clouds is just a waste. Go to geo-earth if you care that much. --Golbez 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. They are quite useful. íslenska hurikein | #12 (samtal) 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete these, the betting pools, and the off-topic discussions as well. Wikipedia is not an online forum. We are here to write an article on the hurricane season, not to especially have fun in off-topic things while we're doing it. If the hurricane season alone doesn't interest you enough that you have to have frivolous subpages, then just don't edit the article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor a discussion forum. These speculative discussions are mildly interesting and educational but do not advance our purpose of creating encyclopedia articles.  Users with this passion should find another outlet for their discussions such as the exchanges mentioned above.  (And yes, I also think we should delete the betting pools too.)  Rossami (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly unencyclopaedic even for a talk page.--Runcorn 21:38, 10 August 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.