Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclone Tiffany

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 , albeit not strongly. This does not preclude a merger discussion if folks want to continue that Star Mississippi 04:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Tiffany[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)

Does not pass WP:NEVENTS or WP:NWeather guidelines. Caused minimal damage and but one fatality. Can be merged into 2021–22 Australian region cyclone season (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and Australia. Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there is encyclopedic value to be found here, and there was fairly notable landfalling impacts in AUS. I'd disagree if this was a meandering cyclone in the ocean, but I elect to keep. Gnomatique (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it impacted and made 2 landfalls in australia, with one being as a cat 1 storm (or cat 2 in australian scale) and brought heavy rainfall and flooding reports Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per nomination. Not notable enough for an article per WP:NWEATHER and it doesn’t justify any type of special cases. Noting the article was created by a now blocked WP:SOCK account (does not qualify for G5). Unless someone can find a valid reason to satisfy a “special case” as to why this should be kept, there is absolutely no way this should be an article. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is an argument that WP:DEPTH and duration of coverage is inadequate to make it a notable event, however, in addition to contemporaneous coverage of the cyclone's life, there has been subsequent coverage relating to insurance claims resulting from it. KEEP I think. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

$50,000 AUD ($36,000 USD) in insurance claims does not make it notable either. Drdpw (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided My suspicion here is that @Elijahandskip and Drdpw: is being too harsh here, as Tiffany seems to have had a significant indirect impact on Australia. In particular, I note that Tiffany impacted the majority of Australia, washed away railroads and seems to have had a significant impact on Australia as a remnant low. I also feel that WPWX/WPTC need to have a conversation about what tropical cyclones are notable for articles, as this is one of those marginal cases.Jason Rees (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: In fact, WPTC has had the conversation about tropical cyclone notability. A decently long one in fact with multiple editor inputs. That was how WP:NWEATHER was created. Whether or not editors gave input for it, there was a whole lot of talk page messages and alerts about WP Weather creating a notability page. I will note that you did give input on the notability page as well. There is two ways a TC is notable enough for an article. 1 is fairly obvious where no editor on earth would question “Should this have an article?” Like Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Fiona, ect… Building on that first point, it is when a TC has a large impact to land. The second way a TC becomes notable is by some extreme rare event. Example is Tropical Storm Danny (2021), which had extremely minimal impacts, but was the first system to make landfall on the U.S. state of South Carolina in the month of June since Hurricane One in 1867. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, right now by Cyclone Tiffany caused fairly low-impacts to Australia. The article also does not indicate any sign of like a “rare event”. I will say though, you mentioned it washing away railroads, but that is not mentioned in the article. The merge, at least in my opinion, is not too harsh, since an article either is notable enough or isn’t notable enough. I think the main and only question is, does Cyclone Tiffany pass WP:NWEATHER? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: We obviously need a new discussion since we have had a lot of AFDs and complaints about the criteria from other editors over the last few months it seems. It is also worth reminding you that Wikipedia:Notability (weather) is only an essay that is meant to cannot cover every single sciencero. Anyway I personally belive that Tiffany passes the weather criteria as it had a large impact on Australia, even though the death.damage totals are low because the 4 states it impacted Queensland, Northern Territory, Western & South Australia are not as populated as other parts of Australia. I mentioned that railroads were washed away which caused signficant delays to freight for several weeks per the BoM's TCR on Tiffany, which proves that it had lasting impact.Jason Rees (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 8 December 2022 (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.