Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Danielle (2004)

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The result was speedy keep due to withdrawn nomination. No arguments to delete. --Coredesat 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Danielle (2004)

Hurricane Danielle (2004) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable, not every single weather event needs to be cataloged. This one didn't effect a single person as far as I can tell. Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Note google results for this hurricaine are under 1000 [1] (this includes all 5 named Danielle). -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - We have infinite amount of space. Why not have an article on every single hurricane? Hurricanes don't occur every day. --Ineffable3000 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, hurricanes are notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - All of the refs are from the NOAA, why not just let the NOAA handle hurricanes that effected basically no-one? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • All the refs from <insert specialist topic> are from <insert website>, why not let them handle it? Because we're an encyclopedia. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As stated above, hurricanes are notable. Gzkn 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. MER-C 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful and readable. All of Wikipedia can be found elsewhere. An encyclopedia provides context, and easy access. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this hurricane is notable and has reliable sources. Hurricanes are always notable whatever it is. Terence Ong 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ridiculous nomination. So we should delete FA Hurricane Irene (2005) because it affected no-one? Strong keep. – Chacor 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't delete it, but it also shouldn't be an FA. As far as Danielle is concerned, keep. -- Kicking222 14:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: No, no one said it should be an FA. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I meant that Irene shouldn't be an FA. Also, your signature is incredibly long. -- Kicking222 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above; all other tropical cyclone articles which affected no one should also be nominated following the reasoning that it didn't "[affect] a single person". - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Too notable to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TSO1D (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
• Strong keep. The WPTC decided a few months ago that there would be articles for every storm back to an undetermined date. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Hurricane Danielle is being up for AfD? What's next Hurricane Katrina? Bearly541 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comon don't get ridiculous. Seriously no one is going to read this article. It's been up for GA for almost a month and no one wants to review it... why? Because its boring and no one, excepting weather people, cares about a hurricane in the middle of nowhere. Lets make it an FA along with every other hurricane in the middle of the Atlantic. Just take each days storm report, make a sentence or three out of it and wallah! It's FA material! I can see that people want to keep it, which is fine, but don't act like its an important article or that I am going to nominate Katrina. Everyone should keep WP:AGF in mind. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just as you should respect our work and not nominate articles for deletion frivolously because "it's been up for GA for almost a month and no one wants to review it... [b]ecause its boring". That is insulting, and I'd dare say that this should be speedily kept as soon as possible by an admin as a bad-faith nomination. I see from your talk page you've been offered a possible RFA nomination, but disruptive actions like nominating well-written ENCYCLOPEDIC articles on AFD will definitely not earn you support. – Chacor 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I am sorry if I offended you, the article is boring to me, it may not be to others. AFD isn't about 'respecting work' as far as amount of work done, there are plenty of articles that are deleted that have had hundreds of people hours poured into them, GNAA is a perfect example. This is about whether the article is 'notable' which I honestly do not believe it is. 1 - effected no one, 2- Less than a 1000 google hits. Any band with that many hits would be gone in a second, no matter how well written the article is. I am fine with this being closed because obviously others believe all hurricanes are notable, but DON'T treat me like I wasn't acting in good faith, I truly believe this article is not notable in any way, and the fact that it is languishing in GA was my prompt to place it here. Is there a dialog anywhere on which weather events are notable? Has a weather article ever been deleted? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, which was caused by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Cindy (2005), and no, no individual well-written encyclopedic storm articles have been deleted to my knowledge. – Chacor 06:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd like to note here that GA status wouldn't mean much. I know of at least one GA that easily was deleted. It's really quite easy to get one person to think your article is good. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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.