Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind advisory

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. Courcelles 19:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind advisory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Redirect declined twice. Not separately notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I plan on fixing it up soon to match other articles that are part of the list of severe weather terminology in the U.S. It's notable on its own, it just doesn't appear to be the way the creator has written the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. IT needs to be expanded/fixed. How is this non-notable. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added references and fixed up the definition. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep/Snowball Keep per both above comments and obvious notability. I doubt anyone in the US is going to deny the notability of Wind Advisories, being that they are one of the most common NWS alerts.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 03:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that this can be closed on basis of WP:SNOW --DeVerm (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, this meteorlogic warning looks like just a normal warning. What's notable about it? - Nabla (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? They are inherently notable. All other watches/warnings have all articles at this time, though this can always change. WP currently has an article for Tropical Storm Erick (2007) which is also weather related, something much less notable than this article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No... Are you? - Nabla (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not kidding either. All types of weather warnings are inherently notable. These are often mentioned in WP:TROP articles and could be wikilinked to. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. I am absolutely surprised that a "it will be sunny", or "it will be windy", or... whatever weather forecast is notable. Weather warning systems, are probably notable; but individual warning messages? Hardly more than a line in the warning system article... - Nabla (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Nabla's benefit, I'm including the navbox at the bottom of this discussion for anyone who would question that individual alert varieties are included.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looks like we have articles for "sunny forecast in the USA", "rain forecast in the USA", etc.. As I see it, it is excessive detail. But I also admit some of them are reasonably well written, for a nearly non-subject articlke. PS: And though not a good reason, yes, there are excessive details far worse than this one around - Nabla (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - I really don't see how describing these articles as "sunny forecast in the USA" is really being helpful to the AfD (if anything, it devalues your !vote by implying that you're over-simplifying what the articels actually say), and comes across as condescending. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

«A Wind Advisory is generally issued [...] when there are sustained winds of 25–39 miles per hour [...]» and... that's about it. There is a warning if there is wind. It is simply that, it is not me simplifying. I understand you may have another viewpoint, and as such 'read' me as disrespectful. It is not my intention at all, and I may understand you. It is probably about the same feeling of surprise as I had when I stumbled upon this and I read comments that this weather warning is "inherently notable" and a "snowball keep". It will probably stay, given I was the only voice joining the nominator. But it certainly is not a "snowball keep". BTW, and being constructive: 1) the 'parent' article is quite fine; 2) may this become more than the current sentence plus a few trivialities? It does happen that one thinks something is unimportant out of his (mine) ignorance - and I do not know everything, that's for sure. Maybe this is the case? But the current article has nothing really, and should be deleted/redirected. - Nabla (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "Snowball Keep" with "Speedy Keep". "Speedy Keep" would mean that this was not even being given discussion. "Snowball Keep" means that there is virtually or entirely no chance of deletion. In other words, "Snowball Keep" closes early due to an overwhelming consensus. so far !votes are 1-5 or 2-5 if you count the nom. That means that greater than twice the number of people want to keep it as delete it/more than two thirds/>67%. The idea is not that we would close without forming consensus like you would in a "speedy keep", but that we would close early because there is already an overwhelming consensus. Additionally, This is not a forecast of wind. Rather, it is the statement that strong wind has been forecast and is a problem. A forecast of wind would be something like

where as a wind advisory would be more like

Hopefully this helped.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 05:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, snowball keep doesn't apply here. 1) It's an essay, not a guideline/policy. 2) With one out of 5 !votes being a delete, there's obviously objection to keeping it. The best course of action here is to let the AfD run its course. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course; but that only changed after the first Delete !vote came, so it's kinda funny to !vote Delete which invalidates snowball and then state that snowball isn't valid. I can't hardly follow my own reasoning anymore so I better stop :-) --DeVerm (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Was that a typo when you said it was an essay? Main-space article. Also, read WP:SNOW with closer detail. The Guideline/policy thing goes with WP:CSK, not SNOW.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is an essay. WP:CSK is a guideline. But none of the speedy keep criterion are met. It's best to just let the AfD run it's course and not close it early. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok I misunderstood. I though you were referring to Wind Advisory as an essay and saying WP:CSK only protects guidelines. WP:SNOW has been used to close deletion discussions in either method in the past. This meets the "criteria for snowball keep" being that it does not "have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted [for deletion]"^[1] The essay may not be a guideline or policy, but it has been used in the past to keep/delete/merge/whatever else things before. It really doesn't matter too much, being that it will be kept either way, it just saves some time.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not voted delete because it is not a snowball keep. It is not a snowball keep *IMO* because I would obviously vote delete. Confusing? May be a little.... but I hope you got it. A weather report, wind or strong wind, or whatever is not article-worth notable in any way I can see or have been shown here. It is certainly notable as a short reference as there is in the (rather nice, I say) article about nomenclature. - Nabla (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about a single weather event, it is about a type of weather report. Nabla, Do you think WP:METEO (a semi-inactive project) needs to rethink about notability criteria. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about WP:METEO's criteria. If it says this is notable, then I'd say the criteria are too low - Nabla (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this would be inherently notable, just like all hurricane seasons are. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - virtually every personal and economic activity is severe-weather-dependent, thus this is inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a regular NOAA term, frequently used. Also there is a strong precedent as demonstrated by Bowser423 MadCow257 (talk) 03:51, 15 August 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.