Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual landfalls of tropical cyclones

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual landfalls of tropical cyclones[edit]

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

The page is entirely unsourced (well, almost, just one for one little bit), full of original research (Debbie 61 did not hit UK as a hurricane, Lisa 10 didn't affect the UK), it's WP:TRIVIA, and per WP:NPOV, "unusual landfall" is original research. There is no rhyme or reason as to what could be in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, impossible to source. There is no such thing as an "unusual landfall" TC. Complete WP:OR. -Atmoz (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently WP:OR and unless some meterological society somewhere has an official definition of 'unusual' it always will be.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fascinating, but unsourcedalicious as well. To be sure, there are some coastal locations where hurricanes and cyclones are demonstrably less frequent than others (such as California vs. Florida), and with objective measures, there's no need to use subjective terms like "unusual". Frequency and windspeed are not impossible to source. It certainly hasn't been done in this case, however. This might work better if it were divided into articles about severe weather by region, such as "Hurricanes in the United Kingdom" or some such. Mandsford 18:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are already articles, such as List of California hurricanes. The problem is that no tropical cyclones have hit the UK, despite what the article says, so there isn't even any salvageable content. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice Idea, but you are in the process of creating original research. It's not wikipedia's job to try and figure out some system to define an unusual landing in order to support a page, we just report on what other people have already decided about this subject, which appears to be nothing.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just put citation tag on the page, dont delete the article..HunterZone (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it can't be sourced since it's untrue, like Debbie 61 hitting the UK, or Lisa 10 affecting the UK. And simply sourcing it doesn't deal with the article being trivial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that a cyclone made landfall in a particular country can be sourced, but how can you consistently source whether that is unusual or not?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well "Unusual landfall" means those cyclones that effect a particular country rarey like Middle east(Oman), Brazil etc.. We dont see tropical cyclones there every year...Therefore the name of the article should not be changed but, yes we can remove those lines which are not true or put citaion there..HunterZone (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before this goes any further, I note that the guy who created the article User:HunterZone, doesn't appear to have been notified that this had been nominated. It's possible that the problem about the word "unusual" could have been resolved early on (although I recognize that there are other objections besides that one). No real harm done, nominator might be new to this, so I'll take care of notifying HunterZone. Mandsford 19:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He commented above, I'm sure he knows. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If 'unusual' is taken out then it just becomes a list of cyclones, which is probably too broad a list and already covered elsewhere.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and an article "Landfalls of tropical cyclones" would be unfeasible. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious, guys, and two polite chuckles are in order, one for each witty observation, but not really the fix I'd suggest if the article creator wants to work on it in his own userspace. I hope you don't mind my borrowing the musical notes.... ♫ La la la... ♫ Mandsford 22:17, 5 February 2011 (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.