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 keep. Policy/guideline-based arguments for delete included that it was unsourced or of substandard quality, but at the very least the article appears to contain a non-scant number of sources, and quality concerns typically only require deletion when severe. Keep arguments cited it seems an acceptable spinout (WP:SPINOUT) and basically what amount of arguments over accessibility and content forking, (e.g., WP:ACCESS / WP:SPLIT / WP:FORK // WP:SPINOUT), which logically follow the argument raised that the notability of the event translates to a lot of content that can't fit in the main article on that event. slakr^\ talk / 01:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina[edit]

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

This article is a large mashed up content fork of the information available at Hurricane Katrina and its associated subpages, with the only difference that this article is meant to display the information chronologically. Though not a primary reason for deletion, large sections of the article remain unsourced, but such information can be found on other Hurricane Katrina pages and is sourced there. Hurricane Katrina was a very important and notable storm, but that does not necessitate content forks. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is of poor quality, incomplete, and much of it is unsourced. Some contents may be useful though, especially the aftermath portions. There are so many Katrina related articles that I cannot tell if this information is available elsewhere. If not, some of the aftermath should be salvaged before this article is deleted.--12george1 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article's faults can be fixed by editing. Timelines are valid ways of presenting information on important events, and Katrina was certainly one of the most important in recent American domestic history. It needs serious pruning because it is too discursive to function effectively as a timeline: a timeline should present headline information. If it is edited, it might be possible to merge it somewhere, or as 12george1 says the timeline it may be available some other way, but the principle of a timeline is valid. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for cleanup, and this is not so bad as to require WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what the nominator sees a minus—that this combines, in chronological order, information found at multiple articles on Katrina—I see as a plus. A timeline is going to be most useful when it can condense an important sequence of events that are divided over multiple articles (I count at least eighteen articles just about Katrina and its aftermath), and where that sequence is of utmost importance to the subject. What happened when, in terms of the development and track of the storm, preparation efforts, when levees broke and areas were flooded, and what the rescue effort and other response was at each stage, etc., etc., is critical to an understanding of Katrina scientifically and historically. Really all we have here from the nomination and the sole "delete" !vote so far is the mistaken belief that "content forks" are an inherently bad thing and complaints about mere cleanup issues. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no matter how bad it looks, AfD isn't clean-up.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a unsourced content fork Secret ^account 15:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Hurricane Katrina article. Hurricane Katrina is presently at approximately 130 kilobytes, and per WP:SIZESPLIT, merging the content to Hurricane Katrina would not benefit Wikipedia's readers. Also, as of this post, the article has 57 inline citations. It's unclear how the delete !voter directly above missed this. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here that isn't (and should be) in Katrina's article. Timelines aren't just a random listing of events. We have an article on Katrina's meteorological history, and we have a various articles on the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Like User:Postdlf, I see advantages to presenting some of this information as a timeline, and better to have that as a separate page than as part of the main article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 29 June 2014 (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.