Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate of Dubai

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Dubai[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)

It is redundant to Dubai#Climate section and United_Arab_Emirates#Climate. --192.107.120.90 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Agree. Redundant (and a cut and paste) from the Dubai piece. However, I can see a Redirect from the Climate of Dubai to the Dubai article. If agreed and closed by an administrator, I could help you in doing this….Just ask. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Shoessss: As far as I can tell the only thing that's copied is the recently added table. This article has an eight-year independent edit history. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable case for summary style. Daask (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and it would be a speedy keep per WP:ATD if not for Shoessss' delete !vote). This is a perfectly valid summary style child article of Dubai. It's already three times longer than Dubai#Climate and could be expanded further. Even if that weren't the case, there is no way this should be deleted; at most it could be redirected. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, it's notable and a perfectly valid summary split of the main article of Dubai. SportingFlyer talk 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid referenced article and helps to keep the main article at readable level. Will advise the nominator to not just rush in nominating articles on behalf of random IP without clear evidence that the article has problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly notable and a reasonable split of the primary article. Any merge would necessitate truncating of information without any need to do so. Regarding Ammarpad's comment, I slightly disagree. A quick message to the IP asking if they're sure (and why they're asking): perhaps. However any of us can drop AfDs like this on without breaking the rules - I view the assisting nom's only true requirements to be sure they aren't spam etc nominations. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Perhaps you misunderstand me. I don't say they broke any rule, they should only be cautious. Or perhaps, it is my conviction, I only nominate article that I reasonably believe has near absolute chance of being deleted, whether I am doing so on my own volition or on behalf of someone else. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: - sorry that was poor words by me, I just meant to stress that I felt unless breaking rules was occuring then assistance should always be provided. Obviously your nomination policy is what each person should be using in their own right, but in the areas that we limit access (or complexity limits it) then assistance should be granted with as much independence to the requesting person as possible. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is an ideological disagreement - it's not like I can't see your viewpoint as having legitimacy Nosebagbear (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point too. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current section "Climatic conditions by month" should probably be merged to the "climate data" table, but in any case should be harmonized with it. Right now, unless "average precipitation" and "average rainfall" have different meanings that I am not aware of, they differ. It might be because of discrepancies in the sources but that should be resolved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically precipitation can be a bit higher because it includes snowfall, hail, sleet etc - but I can't imagine Dubai gets a great deal of those! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but I would like to see the climate chart in the Dubai article much less detailed. The data in both charts are completely different, so reducing one and maintaining full data in just one master monthly climate chart at Climate of Dubai makes sense to me. Or could the table be transcluded into both articles? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2018 (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.