Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of meteorology topics
- 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 CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of meteorology topics[edit]
- List of meteorology topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The list is rather useless in its current state, as it appears to be a dump of the article lists from WikiProject Meteorology, WikiProject Tropical cyclones, WikiProject Severe weather, WikiProject Non-tropical storms, WikiProject Climate and WikiProject Climate change), and has been superseded by List of basic meteorology topics, List of named tropical cyclones, and primarily, Category:Weather and Category:Meteorology. Any purpose the list could have had is better dealt by the category structure below the two categories mentioned above. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The nominator is perhaps unaware of a very current proposal on the talk page for a complete overhaul, massive shortening, and rewrite of the list:
I was planning to rewrite this list, beginning with the removal of all metereological institutions and historical metereological events, leaving just a list of the core academic topics in metereology. I think such a revised list would be useful to have in addition to Category:Meteorology. Lists and categories are complementary as navigational tools. - Neparis (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there is significant encyclopedic value in having a rewritten, tightly focussed list of the core academic topics in metereology. A list is a complementary navigational tool to a category. I am prepared to do the work of renovating the list. It is a good-faith offer. I was hoping that anybody with any interest in the status of this list would try to discuss my proposal on the talk page and build a consensus on what to do next. Nobody, however, has replied to my proposal, and I find that surprising. I don't think it is the best approach to start an AfD without first attempting to discuss on the talk page what is a very active, good-faith proposal for improvement. I would still like to have such a discussion of the proposal. However, I believe there is insufficient time to develop the proposal and improve the list before this AfD closes. An AfD is for discussing the merits of an article in its current form, not of possible future versions. In the circumstances, nominator, would you consider withdrawing the AfD to allow the improvement proposal to be adequately discussed and developed on the talk page? - Neparis (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure wouldn't mind if the article was improved, and I really appreciate the offer, but in a way, I'm not 100% sure we need the article. That's what I'd like to know; whether other editors would find a modified version of this page useful or not, so I'm asking about the usefulness of the page as a topic, not necessarily in its current incarnation. But don't wait, the talk page is pretty much not watched by anyone (that's why no one has replied), just be bold and overhaul it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need the article to match all the other List of foo topics.-- Alan Liefting-talk- 18:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure wouldn't mind if the article was improved, and I really appreciate the offer, but in a way, I'm not 100% sure we need the article. That's what I'd like to know; whether other editors would find a modified version of this page useful or not, so I'm asking about the usefulness of the page as a topic, not necessarily in its current incarnation. But don't wait, the talk page is pretty much not watched by anyone (that's why no one has replied), just be bold and overhaul it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per Neparis' comments above. User:Wavelength has made a significant no of edits to the page. This editor has also worked on many lists pertaining to the environment. See User talk:Wavelength and Talk:Lists of environmental topics for editing issues similar to those with this page. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle Delete - The main value of lists is to identify topics on which articles are needed (given as red links), but there are virtually none in this bloated list. Categories are a much better navigation tool. If kept, all the hurricanes, tropical storms etc. should be removed into separate lists, with a single cross-refernece in the main list. However, I would be willing for the list to be kept for (say) a month to enable the project to tidy it away. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The main value in a revamped List of meteorology topics would be to identify, in a very short list, what are the core topics in the academic field of meteorology. It seems to me like a most appropriate and useful list to have in any encyclopedia that aims for good coverage of mainstream academic fields. A good list does much more than a category. You seem to have lots of ideas for improving the existing list. If you have time, please lend a hand in developing the current proposal for improvement on Talk:List_of_meteorology_topics. - Neparis (talk) 17:54, 22 February 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.