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 per consensus. Michig (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2010[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Each season we had a summary of that season on its own page. For Eastern Pacific and Atlantic, we even had a timeline. I think those summaries are already enough and I don't think we have to add info to another separated page. If info is needed, then add back to the corresponding articles. B dash (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @B dash:, Yeah we do have season articles, but we dont have anything that highlights events that took place across the entire world. This is unique in the fact that it highlights storms that were threatening land around the world. Not to mention it has a timeline of every tropical cyclone that took place (at least though September) in the world. I also would like to mention that in the future that this article would have the total amount of fatalities and damages around the world from tropical cyclones in 2010. This article has potential for development and further exploration. Something like this simply does not exist and we should keep it. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 11:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It has been a long held ambition of certain members of the tropical cyclone project to have an overview article of the tropics during the year. I also personally feel that it is an interesting idea to have this article, as we can then go a bit more in depth to the various factors that contribute to tropical cyclone formation etc then we can in the season articles. I would assume that it would take after the tropis section in the BAMS State of the Climate in XXXX reports. It would also provide a usefull venue going forward for any miscellanious tropical or subtropical cyclones that we dont know how to deal with. However, I do not feel that each and every system needs to be included in the month by month wrap up. Maybe just the most signifcant and even then only a few sentences for each system.Jason Rees (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems like the wrong venue, as the issue is how to organize content across multiple articles, which is a matter of editorial judgment, rather than an issue with whether Wikipedia should have this content at all. And this doesn't seem to be a question of this being a duplicate of another article, but rather a global summary of others. As best as I can tell, at least... Please always link to the articles that you believe relate or overlap with this one so people reading the discussion don't have to hunt it down or guess what other articles you are talking about. Right now I simply don't see a deletion argument or issue, but rather a broad question about development and organization that should have been raised on a Wikiproject or article talk page first (and if that had been done already, again, please link to it). postdlf (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I barely had time to develop the article before this deletion notice was put on it. There wasn't any discussion nor did I feel it would be such an issue as this was a low priority stub when I started work on it yesterday. People are more than welcome to chime in when it comes to developing the article. Nobody had said anything to me before today. As for your request to put article links, I am working on that. I simply didn't have enough time to do that yesterday. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were actually directed towards the nominator, including the request that he link to whatever other articles he thinks are "enough" on this topic. postdlf (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Focus on the named storms, list how many per basin and by each month. List records, damage, deaths, whatnot. The article has been around for a while, and it’s never really been developed properly. I vote keep to give it a chance to flesh out the article, and hopefully bring that type of article to the present. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An overview of all tropical cyclones in a given year is useful and good to have. This is also a very suitable place to explain how events like El Nino, La Nina etc affect global tropical cyclone activity. Would suggest putting ((Under construction)) to show that the article is still being developed. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sole principle that there's information that we can include here that doesn't belong in season articles and therefore warrant WP coverage. Just because until this week an article of this type has never passed the planning stages doesn't warrant deletion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:51, 18 July 2018 (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.