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. Consensus here actually seems to be that all articles of this type should go, I suggest opening a wider discussion or a mass afd on that subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous nomination was back in October, before there was any real content in the article. In the past day, the article was created using text from other articles. It is a complete content fork, I suppose trying to make a prose version of Category:2011 meteorology. For convenience, I linked in the article where all of the sections come from.

The main reason I'm proposing deletion is because it's January 17th, and the article already has a lot of (redundant) info. There simply will be too much for it to be stable by the end of the year. As I mentioned in a previous AFD that was "no consensus", there is no scope of the article, just a mish mash of everything weather related in one article. Again, that is what categories are for. Might I point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. While the article is currently in decent shape, that is only because it copies for content from five different articles. The previous article can show how the article quickly turns to messiness when it tries to cover every last storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, i'll modify the article. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my concern at all. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am completely opposed to these Global Storm Articles to begin with and favor the solutions brought forth following previous AFDs. This article takes it a step further because as it has been pointed out, this is merely a mess of separate articles merged into one. As usual with these articles this one already is setting itself up to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT. It is time to move forward and find an alternate solution to this type of article. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditions - I have revamped and reconstructed this article just like 2009 and previous articles after the nomination. If that too doesn't work, all they articles should be deleted as all of them are a probably "mess of separate articles merged into one". --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2009 is not exactly a model article itself, clearly it too has issues with being a directory of often trivial information. The fact is that all these articles are choppy, very long and often times redundant to other content that already exists on Wikipedia. In my opinion this article must be nipped in the butt, and we must set a precedent for simple disambiguation rather than a sloppy indiscriminate collection of information. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean these articles must be converted to disambiguation pages. Alright, lets try that then. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you include every tropical cyclone, when there are already dabs covering them? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would include every tropical and extra tropical event because there are in some way related to this article. I dont have the strength to oppose each and every person. If you feel that this article is useless in every way, you may delete it right away! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is clearly just a list, and a legitimate/notable list, just like Global storm activity of early 2010 and other similar lists. Yes, it should be improved and extended. Not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• These articles didn't even exist until about a half a year ago to my knowledge, one day I awoke to see these massive messes of information that pretty much duplicate information already available. If someone wants to find out about a hurricane then look at 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, or if it is a tornado outbreak they can refer to tornadoes of 2011; we even have articles on things like the winter in Europe, or the infrequent and rare South Atlantic tropical cyclone. All this stuff exists, so it makes the need for this "list" irrelevant. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of weather reports. WP:NOTNEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting the article changed greatly after my delete comment [1], I agree with those below that this can now be better dealt with as a category. -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I believe that it could be expanded, which would make me lean to "keep", but if no effort is made, I will say "delete"--12george1 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a duplication of Category:2011 meteorology.—Diiscool (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a short list lacking any context. This is one of the uncommon cases when a Category is much preferable than this type of checklist. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, topic has not been analyzed by secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 09:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I haven't yet seen a good reason for deletion, particularly since the concept of tracking the year's weather seems to be established, and since the seven events listed so far in the first 33 days of 2011 are apparently notable enough for their own article. With regard to the "no content" objection, it apparently had quite a bit of content until someone cut it way down [2], apparently because the nominator objected to it being a summary of info from the linked articles. After it was trimmed, the objection became that it was just a duplicate of a category. The "not analyzed by secondary sources" objection makes no sense at all to me-- I think it's premature to expect the media to talk about what a wild year 2011 was. We've had some very good articles about the weather events in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. What I perceive is that the persons who would work on this particular article are holding off on editing it because of fear that their work will go to waste. If it's the concept, then nominate 'em all at the same time; if it's the execution, then there's certainly a good model for pages of this nature to emulate. Mandsford 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.