- Hurricane Polo (2014) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Only 3 participants, 2 merge and 1 keep. Should be relisted for broader participation amidst a small and non unanimous discussion. 72.80.246.5 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Participation was limited, but the only keep vote, which I presume was yours, did not provide a policy-based reason for keeping. No evidence of notability was put forward, and no evidence was put forward to show that a standalone page was needed. Rather than wasting more community time here, and (if relisted) at AfD again, why not expand the target article yourself? A merger does not rule out a future spinoff if sufficient encyclopedic material is found. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, as AFC accepting reviewer, meaning that I thought it had a >50% change of passing AFD. The guidelines for tropical storm articles are vague, so that both a strict interpretation and an expansive interpretation are consistent with the guideline, and AFDs show that lack of clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, there is no need to relist a deletion discussion in which nobody - even the nominator - has argued for deletion. The debate about whether to merge or not can, if necessary, continue in article talk space without the need for a misleading and ugly red box on an article. In this case, considering the lack of any policy-based rationale for the "keep" vote, I think Vanamonde's closure of merge is reasonable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the lone keep vote was not at all based in policy, while the nom and other merge vote properly cited WP:NWEATHER and WP:NOPAGE as to why this subject is not notable as a stand-alone article. While more participation would have been ideal, it is not a requirement to assess consensus. Frank Anchor 17:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as correct reading of consensus after weighing the arguments of everyone involved. —Alalch E. 19:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The merge side is IMO substantially stronger (citing WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOPAGE compared with the lone keep vote, which opined it was notable and participants could look into more information without specifying a policy or guideline. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The storm is fundamentally notable. It killed 1-4 people and caused $7.6 million in damage(which is a lot in Mexico), and we have articles on a lot of less significant US storms. Seems like ethnocentrism to me. 100.12.169.218 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Systemic bias is absolutely a problem on Wikipedia, but the solution to other articles of less significance existing is to nominate those for deletion rather than having yet more non-notable subjects. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, reasonable reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
