Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclone Jawad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cyclone Jawad[edit]

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 because the original article that was the subject of this nomination was accidentally deleted. The draft was moved into the main space at the same title as the original article. The discussion below has a clear consensus that the draft is acceptable to be in the mainspace. Closing this as a keep as a result. (non-admin closure) NoahTalk 03:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cyclone Jawad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft already exist. No need for the article, plus the article is very poorly written with no reliable source. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 12:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, since that article covers the topic already. No prejudice to a future G6 to make way for a draft move, assuming that the draft is notable enough (highly doubtful as of now). Chlod (say hi!) 17:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually is probably ok for an article. Not just a fish storm as it has killed one person so far and all the preps/evacuations happening are just extra info to fill the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elijahandskip: Preparations are usually done prior to impact; this is a routine event that happens to almost all storms with a chance of affecting a country. What really pulls together the notability of a storm is its impact, and one death is not enough to justify an entire article as that can fit easily within the season article. We'd be saving time (both for readers and editors) if it were all consolidated into the season article given the minimal (i.e. can be described in a few sentences) impact. I guess another factor for notability is meteorological significance, which, I don't think this storm qualifies for either. Chlod (say hi!) 05:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Well when this Afd debate is done and it is deleted, WP Weather can start a discussion about the draft vs season article. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Keep given the recent presence of decent coverage. Chlod (say hi!) 07:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is now a CSD tag instructing admins to delete this article and move the draft to this title which I was going to do until I saw this discussion and that this was not a unanimous decision. I'm going to untag the page for now and ask editors to please not ask to move articles that are subject to a deletion discussion unless there is a clear consensus to delete the article. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz:, the only comment that is to keep it, is an anonymous editor who attempted to do a merge during an Afd. There is a clear consensus to delete. The redirect from Chlod was said so there would not be "prejudice to a future G6 to make way for a draft move". I think there is a clear consensus to delete, so I don't know why you say there is not one. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very important to note the "assuming that the draft is notable enough" part here. Chlod (say hi!) 05:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but either way, you agree the "article" should be off mainspace. That was the main part of my comment. Liz said there was a "unless there is a clear consensus to delete the article" and in an edit summary undoing the speedy delete said "there is not a clear consensus for this at the AFD discussion", which is why I commented that there really is a clear consensus to at least delete the article. The draft part is a different discussion to have at a later time. For now, we need to get the article off mainspace. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was also the opinion that this page should be turned into a redirect which is why I said it wasn't unanimous. I just was expressing my view as I looked over this AFD, I have no opinion about the fate of this page. I don't generally participate in AFDs, I look over pages tagged for speedy deletion and while I have seen requests in AFDs to do a uncontroversial speedy delete on a page, I've never seen a requested page deletion & move during an AFD so I had questions. There is no urgency, any move can wait until this discussion closes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete – On procedural grounds. This "article" that is under discussion should've never been created. Instead the draft should've been published to mainspace. Honestly, the draft should've been created directly in the article mainspace instead of the draft space, since it concerned an ongoing/recent event - drafts rarely receive the widespread attention that articles on current events require, anyway. This is already a mess, and the only way I can see to resolve it is to either delete the current "article" and publish the draft, or immediately redirect the article, and then use a round-robin move (this requires Page-Mover rights) to publish the draft to the current title. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate delete - The draft reads better and this one doesn’t read like an article. Kaseng55 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I didn't see this AFD. I moved the draft to the main page. Seeing as there is some simultaneous page history, should I restore the edits of the old page (the subject of this AFD), which would create some back and forth between the versions? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Um, I don't know what the procedure for this would be. Just based on !votes, the old article would have been deleted with 8 delete !votes (+1 redirect, still a delete) to 1 keep !vote from an IP editor who has caused multiple problems during the Afd. Logically, the Afd should be closed and some discussions should open up on WP's Weather's talk page about notability as a weather event, but half the time, logic doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia. I really don't know. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabeelul hidaya: It already was merged. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The storm seems to have had considerable impact on 3 different states in India. I don't want to go WP:OtherStuffExists on the much less impactful storms with their articles, but this one seems to be WP:Notable enough and has numerous WP:RS regarding it. But yeah just stated my opinion, let the majority decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyclone_Jawad&oldid=1059050012"