Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Cindy (2005)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was keep (18 keep, 8 delete, 1 merge/redirect). Robert T | @ | C 01:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tropical Storm Cindy (2005)
Non-notable storm. No additional information than from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Cindy. Redirect to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --CFIF 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment—It doesn't look like there is much independent content there, so maybe redirection would be proper, but that wouldn't require AfD, just a sound editorial decision by the contributors familiar with the topic. I don't understand the prefaced comment that the storm was "non-notable." If it is non-notable, why would it be documented at all on Wikipedia? Do we have a precedent on this regarding named tropical storms? It isn't like it's the November 9, 2005 New York City Metropolitan Area Rain Shower. Postdlf 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's non-notable that it only caused three deaths, and it's covered at the main hurricane article. The current consensus on creating TC articles is if the storm was notable (Tropical Storm Allison), or did major damage (Hurricane Stan), or there is enough information to warrant its own article (Hurricane Ophelia). NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you point to the discussion(s) that established that consensus, or by what criteria "notability" and "major damage" are judged for storms? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that for most of us who have never edited a meteorological article, it would be nice to have some context. A named tropical storm, to me, seems like it could stand alone as an article, and this one seems to be able to. And the name of the article seems a rather obvious one, so I don't understand that comment either. Postdlf 01:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Golbez.27s_point_of_view, Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_11#Rules_for_new_tropical_cyclone_articles. Also, no one would search for Tropical Storm Cindy (2005), would they? ;) NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 01:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- No less than they would Metropolis (1927 film), Superman (1940s cartoons), or any other article title that requires a parenthetical to disambiguate it. That's not a sound reason for deletion. Postdlf 01:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Golbez.27s_point_of_view, Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_11#Rules_for_new_tropical_cyclone_articles. Also, no one would search for Tropical Storm Cindy (2005), would they? ;) NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 01:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you point to the discussion(s) that established that consensus, or by what criteria "notability" and "major damage" are judged for storms? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that for most of us who have never edited a meteorological article, it would be nice to have some context. A named tropical storm, to me, seems like it could stand alone as an article, and this one seems to be able to. And the name of the article seems a rather obvious one, so I don't understand that comment either. Postdlf 01:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's non-notable that it only caused three deaths, and it's covered at the main hurricane article. The current consensus on creating TC articles is if the storm was notable (Tropical Storm Allison), or did major damage (Hurricane Stan), or there is enough information to warrant its own article (Hurricane Ophelia). NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If it's not notable, why do we have 6 paragraphs, 2 pictures, and 4 external links for it? Sure we can merge it back into the main article, with a redirect...that wouldn't be the same as deleting it...but if that means cutting some of the info out of the article, then this is a step backwards. Jdorje 01:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Also, and as a side note, there is no consensus on what justifies having a separate article for a tropical cyclone. Everyone has their own opinions. Current practice is that storms that are not historically notable are simply covered by the main season article. However this runs into trouble when non-historically-notable storms accumulate too much information about them (many of these storms kill people and do millions of dollars in damages, so they're definitely worth writing about) and begin to clog up the season article. Jdorje 01:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (note; I am the creator of this article). It has information not in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article (unless the info from here has been added there since yesterday). More can be added. Given Wikipedia's major coverage of Hurricane Katrina with multiple articles, having this article is a useful adjunct given the effects of this "mere tropical storm"'s key role in prompting over 80% of New Orleans to evacuate ahead of Katrina. -- Infrogmation 01:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I honestly believe this is the time where "not notable" can be used in a correct context. I am not a fan of giving every storm an article, and very few, if any, Tropical Storms deserve them. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Non-notable storm. --Holderca1 02:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - five external links, well-written article, named storm, has infobox, contains information not found elsewhere, helps reduce size of "season" page. Fails to meet any deletion criteria. Turnstep 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If we have an article for something as meaningless as Hilary Duff, I think we can swing a giant destructive vortex of wind and water. But that's just me. Deltabeignet 03:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think some of you are missing the point here, this is a duplicate article. --Holderca1 03:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- The duplicate-article claim is not a good argument, for two reasons. One, it is not a full duplicate of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, because it has information (including the infobox and added picture) that aren't on the main article. Two, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is 58 kb long and needs to be made shorter; moving information on that article into sub-pages is a good way to do that, particularly information which (like this storm) you consider not to be notable. If we were to make a new sub-article 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms populated with all the information about all the non-notable storms, then we would have a way to move this excess information off of the season article without having to worry about clutter; however, I don't see why this would be any better than one article per storm. Remember Wikipedia is not paper...non-notable information should be moved off of the main season page, not onto it, so that if people don't want to read it they don't have to. Jdorje 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I've seen no good reason to delete it, and I don't think a merge decision is so obvious as to render a binding decision on that here. Postdlf 05:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Pintele Yid 06:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I got to exerience typhoon zelda in 1991 and it isn't mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, "typhoon zelda" gets 103 google hits.[1] "Tropical storm cindy" gets 51,900.[2] Postdlf 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- FWIW, Typhoon Zelda was in 1991. Tropical Storm Cindy has happened recently in 1993, 1999 and 2005. Obviously Cindy gets more hits. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 08:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Do we make decisions on everything based on the Almighty Google Hit? Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Umm... obviously a typhoon that happened in 1991 would get fewer google hits than a tropical storm that happened this year. Events that happened before the spread of the web are usually not covered as well by sources on the web. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, "typhoon zelda" gets 103 google hits.[1] "Tropical storm cindy" gets 51,900.[2] Postdlf 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable. Tropical cyclones whose names have been retired deserve their own articles, but not every tropical storm. I pay very close attention to tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin (after all, I spent more than 2 hours in the eye of Hurricane Wilma, and lost my power for 7 days), and I don't remember Cindy. - Dalbury (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect-this storm isn't notable. There are already too many subpages on the 2005 season article. I was going to merge it myself, there seeming to be a consensus for this action on the talk page. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign originally)
- Keep. Satisfies the criterion of being more notable than Koga (Pokémon). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-10 14:23
- Keep. In my opinion notable enough for an article, and too large to make merging a better option. - Andre Engels 15:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Brian. 10:53, 10 November 2005 (EST)
- Keep per Jdorje and Turnstep. AndyJones 18:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability follows from claimed causal connection to Katrina at bottom of page. Melchoir 23:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- And again, see my point below - does this mean we need a Tropical Depression Ten (2005)? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 07:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not going to start an article on Tropical Depression Ten, but if there existed such an article and it helped manage the size of the huge Hurricane Katrina article, I would vote to keep it! Melchoir 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- And again, see my point below - does this mean we need a Tropical Depression Ten (2005)? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 07:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- 'Delete per above, particularly Dalbury who would seem to know! Dottore So 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The article's got plenty of information establishing its notability (see the "Impact" section), and it's too big to merge into a list. Bryan 00:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- EVERY storm has an impact, does it mean you want to create an article for Tropical Depression Ten (2005) which reorganised into Hurricane Katrina? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 04:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't Hurricane Katrina not already, logically, the main article for Tropical Depression Ten (2005), although only by implication of the text within 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season? AySz88^-^ 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- EVERY storm has an impact, does it mean you want to create an article for Tropical Depression Ten (2005) which reorganised into Hurricane Katrina? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 04:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge Doesn't need a separate entry, merge this content with the subsection on the 2005 Atlantic Hurrican Season. Jasmol 02:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep until further notice. This nomination confuses me, what criteria is being used to determine what is a notable storm and what is not? Yamaguchi先生 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- The criteria is simple: Will people be talking about this storm a year or two from now? People still talk about the flooding from Hurricane Agnes here in the Washington DC area even though it happenned back in 1972, and Hurricane Isabel of 2003 did more wind damage than this area had seen in a long while. In Houston Tropical Storm Allison of 2001 will be long remebered. I have my doubts that people are going to be bringing up this storm often, and when they do they will soon enough be asking "What was it's name?". --EMS | Talk 05:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that criteria - hardly anyone "talks about" most of the articles on Wikipedia. For example, I doubt people often "talk about" what happened in the year 1139, but it's something that is worth having an article on, and most topics for research (this is an encyclopedia, after all) probably don't correlate with what is being "talked about". AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The issue isn't if this storm should be documented. Instead it is where. There is a difference. I don't see that 1139 is going to be part of an article on the "1130s", or even expected to be there. However, 2005 AHS is an obvious container for this storm. --EMS | Talk 06:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that (and the other response to my comment below). To me, merging Tropical Storm Cindy into 2005AHS is exactly the same as trying to merge 1139 into 1130s. It's not that 1130s might not be a useful article as an overview of the events of the decade - but it'd have to be in addition to 1139, where 1139 contains more details. The articles are more organized and easier to drill down. I think the analogous would be appropriate for 2005AHS and Tropical Storm Cindy - get rid of detalis in 2005AHS and keep them in Cindy's article. (See Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Season Summary Section for discussion on distinguishing between the amount of detail appropriate between 2005AHS and specific storms' articles, and Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Radical reorganization for taking this to the conclusion. The first discussion seems unresolved; the second seems to be too premature of a suggestion.) AySz88^-^ 07:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- If there is a consensus on placing all storms (or maybe just all severe and/or landfalling storms) into seperate pages, I will not object. Such an agreement should include a clear deliniation of responsibilities betweenthe main article and the storm pages however. I see no such agreement at this time, nor will I anticipate one. As-is, this is best considered to be a piece of the 2005 AHS. That is my two-cents worth. --EMS | Talk 16:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that (and the other response to my comment below). To me, merging Tropical Storm Cindy into 2005AHS is exactly the same as trying to merge 1139 into 1130s. It's not that 1130s might not be a useful article as an overview of the events of the decade - but it'd have to be in addition to 1139, where 1139 contains more details. The articles are more organized and easier to drill down. I think the analogous would be appropriate for 2005AHS and Tropical Storm Cindy - get rid of detalis in 2005AHS and keep them in Cindy's article. (See Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Season Summary Section for discussion on distinguishing between the amount of detail appropriate between 2005AHS and specific storms' articles, and Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Radical reorganization for taking this to the conclusion. The first discussion seems unresolved; the second seems to be too premature of a suggestion.) AySz88^-^ 07:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The issue isn't if this storm should be documented. Instead it is where. There is a difference. I don't see that 1139 is going to be part of an article on the "1130s", or even expected to be there. However, 2005 AHS is an obvious container for this storm. --EMS | Talk 06:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that criteria - hardly anyone "talks about" most of the articles on Wikipedia. For example, I doubt people often "talk about" what happened in the year 1139, but it's something that is worth having an article on, and most topics for research (this is an encyclopedia, after all) probably don't correlate with what is being "talked about". AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The criteria is simple: Will people be talking about this storm a year or two from now? People still talk about the flooding from Hurricane Agnes here in the Washington DC area even though it happenned back in 1972, and Hurricane Isabel of 2003 did more wind damage than this area had seen in a long while. In Houston Tropical Storm Allison of 2001 will be long remebered. I have my doubts that people are going to be bringing up this storm often, and when they do they will soon enough be asking "What was it's name?". --EMS | Talk 05:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I see that some are voting to keep this article separate because it is too big to merge back into the season article. Maybe that means that the article needs to be tightened up and shortened. It seems to me that the length of articles should be roughly proportional to the importance of the subject. We don't need to shovel every last little known tidbit on a subject into its article. I also see a tendency to inflate articles about recent events compared to articles about past events. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be biased towards very recent events. - Dalbury (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- About the last point: It seems that would warrent expansion of the past storms as opposed to shrinkage of current storms, which means that doesn't further the argument (that this article should be shrunk) much. AySz88^-^ 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is inevitably biased toward recent events, if only because there is more secondary material from which to draw. It is impossible to maintain the same level of detail on articles from different eras. Maybe this means we must try harder on old topics, but it can't mean that we stifle ourselves on new topics! Melchoir 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Almost the same contents as section on Cindy in 2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Non-notable. (Even in a normal year its number of deaths and damage would not have been notable.) --EMS | Talk 05:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's more than one way to solve the first problem - extra details have been removed from 2005AHS until there's some decision here. They can be replaced if the decision happens to be to merge. AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Er—it got reverted by NSLE; I left a message on his talk page, as there certainly isn't much point to the article if the details aren't moved away from 2005AHS. Here's the diff if you want to see what I'd had in mind. AySz88^-^ 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I thnk that your exercise only shows the ease with which this article can be shortenned up as part of a merge back into 2005AHS. Unless this article is seriously expanded, it is not needed. However, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information". I do not see that such an expansion is either needed, useful, or in the least encyclopedic. --EMS | Talk 06:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Er—it got reverted by NSLE; I left a message on his talk page, as there certainly isn't much point to the article if the details aren't moved away from 2005AHS. Here's the diff if you want to see what I'd had in mind. AySz88^-^ 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's more than one way to solve the first problem - extra details have been removed from 2005AHS until there's some decision here. They can be replaced if the decision happens to be to merge. AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Even Tropical Storm Tammy is more notable than Tropical Storm Cindy. Why do we have this? Is it becase it made landfall in New Orleans? The article creator seems to be a New Orleanian, according to his User page -70.48.44.119 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Side note, for those not in the know, Tammy is one of two systems that caused the Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 05:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As mentioned before, more notable than some of the other (already consensus-notable) articles on Wikipedia, and helps keep 2005 Atlantic hurricane season shorter. AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if EVERY other storm, including fish-spinners, were to get its own article (an off-season project). Otherwise, merge back. CrazyC83 16:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The more information on Wikipedia, the better. It's as simple as that. And because having a separate article means it gets more information, I say Keep. --Mark J 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is such a thing as too much information in an encyclopedia article. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 18:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Contains enough info to deserve its own article. It looks quite notable too. *drew 22:39, 15 November 2005 (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.
