Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable tropical cyclones

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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable tropical cyclones

I realize how controversial this is, but it has to be done. The biggest problem, and the primary reason I am nominating it, is the title. Notable is completely subjective. That wording allows for trivial minutiae to be included. List after list could be included of unimportant storms that were "notable" for a minor reason, such as for naming or just a list of storms that affected a certain area. The reason this will be controversial is that it links to over 500 articles, and has over 1500 edits. Indeed, it is one of the oldest continually edited article in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. However, as a user pointed out a few weeks ago, all content on Wikipedia should be notable; the user moved it to List of tropical cyclones, which is also a bad name for it. Additionally, the article seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information loosely connected by the term notable. For example, the South Atlantic section just lists the three only known possible storms in the basin. The Southern Hemisphere section, which was recently deleted, contained a list of a few destructive storms. The true records could be moved to the already existing article called List of tropical cyclone records, which is much better defined than notable. Rather than deleting it entirely, which would get rid of the edits, I propose to userfy it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom, article is redundant and a duplicate to the various tropical cyclone season articles and records articles in terms of non-trivial information. The list is a loosely connected collection of topics, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate of information. In its current form the list is mostly unsourced and unverified and may contain some original research. Simple cleanup won't solve this problem given the amount of information that's here. --Core desat 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "The biggest problem, and the primary reason I am nominating it, is the title." I cannot agree with that as a reason to erase something that has been carefully constructed over what appears to be a period of weeks. I will leave it to others to comment further on that statement. Suffice to say that there is nothing subjective about the criteria that the author uses in describing notable cyclones. Intensity is measured by barometric pressure, costliness by billions of dollars worth of damage, deadliness by thousands of fatalities. I cannot imagine a more objective, nor a less subjective, way of measuring whether a storm is intense, costly, or deadly. Mandsford 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The majority of tropical cyclones listed have articles, so they are notable by definition, otherwise the article should be deleted. I recommend moving the few redlinks to the talk page as a list of cyclones that people might consider writing articles on. If an article is written, the cyclone should be moved back to the list. If notable is removed from the title, the list could contain cyclones that are not notable. A list like this gives information that is not given in a category, so readers can use it make comparisons. Such extra information should be in the specific article on the cyclone so sourcing is not a problem. It should be sourced in the article. --Bduke 23:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The problem with this article is if properly maintained, it will be truly gigantic (think of the order of several hundred storms); "unusual landfalls" is very subjective for example. This list would be much better replaced by a number of lists, List of deadliest tropical cyclones for example, which would provide a much superior experience for any reader and retain useful redlinks. By userfying this list, any useful information can be preserved for addition into the independent lists; which will be much less indiscriminate (once this is done the userfied page can be deleted).--Nilf anion (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a view to splitting the article into smaller bits as Nilfanion mentions above, at which point this could turn into a disambiguation or similar. – Chacor 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be able to find the "top 10" or so of every list that was split out in one article, it would save a lot of clicking. Kappa 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong keep per mandsford. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find this type of article useful when doing research. Also per Mandsford. Brusegadi 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change the title if it doesn't meet the rules, List of tropical cyclone records is something different. Abdullah_mk

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.