Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2011

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 no consensus. There seems to be general agreement there could be an article at this topic. There is disagreement if the current article is that one, or if it should be the one in draft, as it is now, or if it should be some other formulation and we should redirect until such a time. Given that no one is suggesting outright deletion I am closing as no consensus for now; if someone needs a histmerge with the draft please see me on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2011[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)

Seems to be a template someone created, not sure it is something that can be hugely expanded. I could be wrong, so decided not to use CSD. Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I move to withdraw this AFD (see below). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a yearly tropical cyclone article, like Tropical cyclones in 2019. There is already a draft at Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have asked for a redirect to the draft, but since redirects from mainspace to draftspace are deleted as WP:R2, it is best if this is deleted. Java Hurricane 12:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After some discussion, I'm changing my !vote to Redirect to Tropical cyclones by year. We can always merge the draft in here once it is ready. Java Hurricane 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JavaHurricane. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tropical cyclones by year. Noah^Talk 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mass improvements needed but not delete All there is to it from me. ~ AC5230 talk 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC) (10:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time)[reply]
Keep, but merge the draft into this article. It wouldn’t seem so stubby then. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the draft. SMB9 9thx my edits 23:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either this is taken from the draft, or merged into the draft. My decision here should be not taken as to Keep or Delete. I also have an interest on working in this article to give some help. SMB9 9thx my edits 12:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards this being kept, but this article needs improvement with some copyediting from the draft. If this article got redirected because of opposition in the comments (which may overwhelm the withdraw request), i'll copy some of the contents article had into the draft anyway. SMB9 9thx my edits 08:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to original target (Tropical cyclones by year) as a valid alternative to deletion and merge existing content into the draft. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Tropical cyclones by year. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Massive improves done by Janm 7, so different article now. Dream Focus 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, if this article got redirected, i'll notice Janm 7 to continue working the article on the draft. I'll copy some of the content to the draft. SMB9 9thx my edits 06:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You want to waste time putting it as a draft, and then back again later on, for what reason? There is enough valid information to justify its existence already. It is far more likely work will be done on an article in mainspace than drafts anyway. Dream Focus 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand why we are moving this to a draft space. That seems quite contrary to the spirit of the wiki. Pretty much all our articles are works in progress, I can understand if a draft was something that wasn't notable, but this is not such a topic and quite a bit of work has been put into it. In fact, I can't understand why this wasn't moved out of draft space sooner! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - after Janm 7 did a massive and incredible expansion, I would like to withdraw this nomination. And also, I tip my hat to this incredible editor! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chris.sherlock, Can i copy the contents from the draft into the article? Thank you. SMB9 9thx my edits 10:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMB99thx I would wait for this AFD to finish, then request that the draft's history be merged into the main article. See Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the article is still in poor shape with almost every month blank. Noah^Talk 19:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which can be fixed over time. Articles on Wikipedia don’t come out fully formed immediately. -Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the draft space exists. Noah^Talk 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the purpose of draft spaces. They are not designed to have fully formed articles pop out onto main space. They are literally meant to be there for a short period of time to be developed and determined whether they are notable enough to actually exist. They help new editors to propose articles that they believe should be on Wikipedia where they may have a COI, aren’t sure how to go about editing, or need assistance with their edits. They are time limited and at a certain point they need to be moved to mainspace.

The fact is that there is a fleshed out, incomplete, but still quite adequate article in draft space, and a completely empty article in mainspace that has started to be fleshed out now. This leads to now two articles. It’s absurd. And Wikipedia is a wiki, and articles are constantly being worked on and expanded all the time. That’s literally the mechanism we use, and unless a major policy has gone through stating we need to vet all new articles (and this has been proposed many times over the decades, and consistently rejected) that’s the way we produce material on Wikipedia.

AFC is a process to help reduce disruption and drama. It’s not a mechanism to form valid articles in final form. We do this through mainspace. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is an article with no prose acceptable? It has a one-sentence lead. There are only two sources present throughout the entire article. Although a subject like this obviously is notable, there aren't enough sources there to prove it. Keep in mind that the table with the number of storms in the year is OR and also entirely unsourced. Draft space isn't just for AfC... It is meant to be a space where people collaborate on topics that aren't yet ready to be an article. This at least needs to have the summary of the year correct and sourced before it can be an article. The fact the infobox and global effects have no stats shows this isn't quite ready. Noah^Talk 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if the topic is notable, then all the things that currently make the article poorly written can be fixed. The solution to an article with a one sentence lead is to expand the lead. There are plenty of sources around cyclones that can be sourced to update the article. Just look at NOAA or any related site. The solution to a list of unsourced storms is to find sources for the storms and remove those that have no source. That’s not original research, either there were a number of storms or there weren’t.

There is another space where people are meant to collaborate to write articles. It’s called mainspace, and has been that way since the very beginning of Wikipedia. Unless you think nobody collaborates on articles in mainspace? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

draftify move the content from here to the draft and redirect the article to Tropical cyclones by year for now. It seems to be incomplete and needs time to develop before it should be mainspaced. I understand the idea that people can work on the article in the mainspace, but there is already a suitable redirect target and the draftspace is literally designed to be a space for articles to be developed further, which is what this article needs. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the purpose of draft space. I think you need to review the criteria in Wikipedia:Drafts. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be created and developed, for a limited period of time. They help new articles to develop and receive feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace. and later under WP:DRAFTIFY: The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace.. What am I missing? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Draftifying should be a very rare outcome at AfD. It has two real purposes, first for CoI editing outside of mainspace, second to allow articles to be developed that would be at risk of being speedied in mainspace. These issues do not apply in this case. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's just not what WP:DRAFT says. If you have a problem with how that page is phrased, please look into changing it. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing in WP:DRAFT says how to apply deletion policy to articles in mainspace; as an explanatory supplement, it is not expected to contradict policies or guidelines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article exceeds start quality on a topic that passes GNG. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT the list passes WP:LISTN criteria. Also the nominator withdrew so I am unsure why the AfD remains open. Wm335td (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (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.