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. Juliancolton (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of late 2010 (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 same problems still exist from the last AFD, only there has been no progress on the article. Those specific problems are ones that can't actually be addressed, meaning this article can never be completed. The biggest issue is the scope of the article. Aside from the poorly-defined "late 2010", I find it difficult, if impossible to try and define "global storm activity". There is no rhyme or reason over what storms they include (and in fact flooding isn't even a storm, per se). It tries to be too broad, but it fails at covering anything properly. In cases where there is already an article on the storm event (such as 2010 Thai floods or Carmen (storm)), it copies the info from those articles, often going into far too much detail than would be needed for a broader article.

The article seems to be a depository of random weather events, not nearly the "major" events it says in the lede. Let me point out:

• "A thick fog covered Mississauga, Ontario on Nov' 19."
• "Met office forecasters predicted that temperatures would to drop to around 2 °C degrees overnight, with patches of mist and fog. They said temperatures would sadly decline at the end of the week for the foreseeable future, with the good chance of a white Christmas"
• "Dawn Fischler, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service branch in Reno, warned people about the cold weather and getting stuck in th snow."
• "Trooper Chuck Allen of the Nevada Highway Patrol said "the winds were so fierce the snowflakes literally stung as they hit your face"."
• "Several forthcoming sporting fixtures could be at risk with racing at Newcastle on Saturday becoming one of the first of the weekend's casualties and Bad weather could also hit tomorrow's FA Cup second round matches."

I could go on. I ask, to anyone who would want to keep the article, how could such an article ever be complete? Weather is happening constantly around the world. If one person gets killed in a storm, that doesn't necessarily deserve mention (see WP:MEMORIAL). Most importantly, I want to emphasize that the article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, in that Wikipedia is not Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. I would say a list of weather events certainly falls under that.

I'd like to point out a similar AFD for this year's global storm activity article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I say it reluctantly simply because contributors have collectively gone to a huge amount of work to get it to this state. Essentially, if these weather events are related, then that would count as OR which is not allowed. If these events are not related, then they do not belong in an article together. And then there is the major consideration, mentioned in the nomination, of how is it decided what's in and what isn't? Because of that, I don't see how the article can really be useful for someone as there's no certainty about the value of or range of information which they will encounter. asnac (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I do agree that the contributors did put a lot of work into the article. I just honestly feel it was for naught. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Although some work has been made, basically the same problems from the last AFD are still there. The article is just way to vague, way too disorganized and way too messy. This really isn't an article of encyclopedic value. Darren23^Edits|Mail 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP is not the Old Farmer's Almanac. Weather happens every day in every place on earth. No need to put together 3 months' worth in one article. BTW storms and floods are often defined by how they affect us humans. If a river's water level rises but no human habitations are affected is it still called a flood? Steve Dufour (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia couldn't possibly cover every major storm in 2010. That's impossible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "book of storms in 2010". Delete per above and nominator. Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Global storm activity of 2010 which should be re-dabbed and have links into article like Tornadoes of 2010 or 2010 Pacific hurricane season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it can still be deleted and that page can be converted to a dab still. I think this page would ultimately be a rather unlikely redirect term. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above editors regarding the scope of this information and why it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The scope is far too large, unlike Tornadoes of 2010 or Earthquakes in 2010. Furthermore, the notability of some of these "major weather events" is also questionable, even if they are sourced. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:05, 21 July 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.