Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina[edit]

This article was originally moved from the Storm history of Hurricane Katrina, and after that, the section was greatly condensed from this article. Most of the important details on this article are already on Hurricane Katrina, and everything else is excessive detail which can be obtained from the official source given on the article. Since there really isn't anything to merge, it should be deleted. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reyk 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is nothing to merge. Note that the article "History of Hurricane Katrina" redirects to this one. If this is deleted, so should that, or redirected to Hurricane Katrina. Carlo 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't accept deleting an article based on a claim of "excessive detail". Who is to say what is excessive and what is not? The material was spun out from the main article, and while I'm not opposed to merging it back, I see no point in reducing our coverage of this event. Furthermore, what kind of argument is it to say that there are better sources available elsewhere? In that case, why should we bother working on articles in the first place since there are great pages, fan sites, official sites etc. for just about everything. Or to put it another way, maybe we should devise a template that blanks pages and provides a link to the better sources available on the internet. -- JJay 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing at all wrong with that argument. If it has been done better elsewhere, where is the crime in redirecting people to another site. There is no reason information must be physically stored in one bank of servers. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep information on Wikipedia's servers is because of the dreaded 404 Not Found error when an external link goes down. Denni ☯ 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just about everything has been done better and in greater detail elsewhere. For example, witness Vegreville, Alberta a little town of no consequence that no one has ever heard of. Our article is six lines, some statistics and a bad photo of an easter egg. What is the point of having editors try to maintain that inconsequential bit of villagecruft when the good folks at www.vegreville.com already provide such incredible detail and a halfway decent picture of the same egg? Why not just link directly to that site, since god knows we will never do it better than the people condemned to worship that egg 365 days a year? Of course, I'll fight for the right of the editors who think they can outdo vegreville right here at wikipedia. I just wish you would join me... -- JJay 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it should still summarize history rather than describe it in excruciating detail. Merge anything crucial to Hurricane Katrina. Deizio 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conditionally only if the article contains info not already in other articles. Weatherman90 02:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The detail is excessive because this amount of detail is available in the tropical cyclone reports of every Atlantic hurricane. Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No, because it does not meet notability criteria. If anything, the TCRs should be added to wikisource. This is text I cut out of the Katrina article because it became too long, and the article itself has thus become a rather poor copy of the TCR (which is very interesting reading, by the way). — jdorje (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this: Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No we don't. Was Katrina just another Atlantic hurricane? No, it wasn't. Which is perhaps why we have 107 articles in our Category:Hurricane Katrina. The community seems to have decided that detail is required for this storm. -- JJay 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is that having such a large amount of information for one storm makes it extremely difficult to manage and improve the article. As Jdorje said, this information is already available somewhere else in Wikipedia, and to have detail to the amount you're indicating, it should be added to Wikisource instead of here. Katrina may be a remarkable storm due to its impact, but the majority of the editors who actually maintain this article want it gone, as it is completely redundant. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem managing or improving the material since it was spun out from the main article. Deleting will certainly not help editors to improve it. Also, jdorje has not said that the material is available elsewhere in wikipedia. A simple comparison of this with Hurricane Katrina shows that the material is not covered there to this extent. Finally, please do not speak for the "majority" of editors here. -- JJay 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So long as there is any new material, it needs to be kept. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't any new material that can be added, everything has been covered in detail at the Hurricane Katrina article. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. Given the impact Katrina had, I don't think this article offers excessive detail. David Sneek 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major issue. This amount of detail is useful, given the controversy surrounding the failure to evacuate on time. Some of the detail from the main article can be offloaded onto this if there's duplication. ProhibitOnions 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ProhibitOnions — important aspect of a major event. Feezo (Talk) 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do people even read the article being AfD'd and the explanations? All information is in other articles, this article is unnecessary. Everything else is available via the external link. Proto||type 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that "all information is in other articles"? David Sneek 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm not aware of the servers nearing capacity.....Jcuk 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid sub-page, along with all of the others for HK. "...available via the external link." is a terrible argument. This is Wikipedia, not Google. Turnstep 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid subtopic. mikka (t) 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and it's an interesting article. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
clean it up and keep it! Sparsefarce 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. This might have been better dealt with as a redirect to avoid this discussion. I'd normally defer to the nominator, especially when one looks at the histories of the pages and sees whom the major contributors are. However the "keep and cleanup without ever editing the page" bloc appears to have spoken, so I'll say "delete but barring that merge (oh wait that's already done and oh, but this isn't a useful redirect) so bugger." - brenneman ^{L} 02:23, 21 March 2006 (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.