Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm train

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 merge to Training (meteorology). –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm train

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article covers the same material covered in a more aptly titled article (see Training (meteorology). Moreover, the references cited use only the terminology from the other article, and do not even use the phrase "storm train". While there are uses of the phrase to be found, the phrase is completely obvious from context (I don't see a need for the main article in the first place, but have given up that cause), and any doubt can be resolved from the page that has the NOAA / NWS definition Training (meteorology). The additional information in this page does not actually belong here. The flooding point is made in the main article and the formation point is made in any number of articles about thunderstorms, rain, and convective instability. Perhaps a redirect may be appropriate, but there should be no separate article under this heading. Bongomatic (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, add section: I think that the article should be kept, but describe a brief paragraph about it in Training (meteorology), and place at the top: Main article: Storm train. -- IRP ☎ 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know this is what you think, but why? The two citations given in the article do not even use the term that is the subject of the article. What information would you want to include in Storm train that shouldn't be placed in Training (meteorology)? That is the criterion for a separate article. The fact that there are synonyms or multiple forms of a phrase doesn't make it helpful to have multiple articles--quite the contrary, it leads to the possibility of duplication, contradiction, or underinclusiveness of one or both articles, which can result in readers not getting the full story when consulting an article they reasonably could expect to be comprehensive. Bongomatic (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see the other one about shouting match, and you should see what User:Colonel Warden said. Obviously that user knows more about the Wikipedia policies than you do. I've noticed that you tend to focus solely on the deletion policy, and not on the other policies, such as the editing policy. -- IRP ☎ 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to provide a reason. Instead of merging, having a brief paragraph about the main article is better, because in the future, when the article gets expanded, it would simply be too much information in one place, and it should be divided into subcategories. Imagine what it would be like if someone tried to merge the article supercell into thunderstorm. That's the purpose that the {{mainarticle}} template serves. -- IRP ☎ 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that splitting a long article into multiple articles focusing on particular aspects is a valid action, but in this case Training (meteorology) is only two sentences long. Perhaps if it were very long and described many different kinds of training, I would be more willing to accept the argument. As it is, the two terms appear to be basically synonyms. So I still think the best course is to merge. However, if the resulting article later expands, it can be split at that time. brianlucas (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Training (meteorology). brianlucas (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Training (meteorology). Which article redirects to which can continue to be discussed at Talk:Storm train, as most of the discussion so far has been there rather than at Talk:Training (meteorology). Qwfp (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and debate which name to keep at Talk:Storm train, as above. No reason for this deletion discussion, this is purely a merging issue.-Running On Brains 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No source given for this name (suggesting delete and redirect, rather than merge), so the other name seems more appropriate, but that's another issue. The proper venue for the merge discussion is at the correct target. It's a plausible redirect, even if it is clearly NOT used in the real world, so it's not worth fighting over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (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.