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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian haze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is redundant. There are already existing articles, such as 1997 Southeast Asian haze, 2006 Southeast Asian haze, 2009 Southeast Asian haze, and most recently, 2013 Southeast Asian haze. Although these articles mainly talk about the individual hazes (the more severe ones), but just by reading any one of the 1997, 2006 and 2013 articles, then the readers would already know the cause of the annual haze. Just to emphasise again, there does not seem to be a real need for this article. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. The discussion will end as Keep, and anyway, I'm convinced by the disambig thingy. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- As the nomination says, there have been multiple hazes, covered in individual articles. If those annual hazes share elements, have a shared cause, it should be covered in an article that summarizes all the hazes. If, on the other hand, there are unique aspects to some or all of the hazes, that too should be summarized in an article about all the hazes. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if nothing else, useful (and I would say, necessary) as a disambiguation page. Ansh666 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An article that is a summary of notable events can, in this case, also be considered notable. It can show the general causes of these hazes and the general history. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This really should be a slam dunk. People are far, far, far more likely to seek out a generic article -- which deals with a perennial issue -- than to decide they're going to type in random years. This is a highly notable phenomenon of worldwide impact. It's not a well-written article, but that's a content issue. Ravenswing 06:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Serves well as a disamb page, even if content should be removed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW. Dab or full article, it's notable. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep excellent prime source article, specially for lesser events that can be listed here rather than have separate stubs with notability issues.. and as others say it serves as a useful dismabig page as well... sats 14:25, 2 August 2013 (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.