Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Lee (2023)
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hurricane Lee (2023) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:N. No direct impacts to land and none forecasted for at least another week. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously notable with significant coverage in reliable sources. Google Hurricane Lee Category 5 and you will get numerous results.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Every Category 5 hurricane makes it on the news, but we don't have articles on all of them, only those that impact land. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:OSE is not an argument for deletion or keeping. Every article needs to be independently assessed for notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- A standard tropical cyclone article has either one or two sections for preparations and impact. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any reliable secondary sources talking about those for Lee so far. The article should only exist in mainspace if/when Lee begins to have direct impacts on land and reliable sources start talking about it. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:GNG says, and it's already sending surf impacts to the East Coast. CNN, for instance mentions surf and rip currents. You're still trying to appeal to WP:OSE, and are failing miserably because it's not a valid debate strategy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Rip currents and surf have not yet begun to affect the East Coast. A preparations and impact section still could not exist. Lee has not broken any meteorological records, nor caused direct impacts to land, and is not notable enough for an article. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You can keep claiming it's "not notable enough" but however much you repeat it, your argument will not be sustained based on what the notability guideline says, especially considering that the timeline for a deletion discussion is a week and it will have impacts by then. You have yet to cite any policy or guideline to support your position so your deletion rationale will likely be disregarded based on that unless you provide such support (it's very laughable how you pointed to WP:N and it does not support your rationale at all).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You do have a point about the timeframe of an AfD being one week. I'll strike my nomination. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @HikingHurricane Did you withdraw this AfD? Because I can do it now, if you would like to. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 21:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I am withdrawing the AfD. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 21:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @HikingHurricane Did you withdraw this AfD? Because I can do it now, if you would like to. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 21:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You do have a point about the timeframe of an AfD being one week. I'll strike my nomination. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You can keep claiming it's "not notable enough" but however much you repeat it, your argument will not be sustained based on what the notability guideline says, especially considering that the timeline for a deletion discussion is a week and it will have impacts by then. You have yet to cite any policy or guideline to support your position so your deletion rationale will likely be disregarded based on that unless you provide such support (it's very laughable how you pointed to WP:N and it does not support your rationale at all).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Rip currents and surf have not yet begun to affect the East Coast. A preparations and impact section still could not exist. Lee has not broken any meteorological records, nor caused direct impacts to land, and is not notable enough for an article. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:GNG says, and it's already sending surf impacts to the East Coast. CNN, for instance mentions surf and rip currents. You're still trying to appeal to WP:OSE, and are failing miserably because it's not a valid debate strategy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- A standard tropical cyclone article has either one or two sections for preparations and impact. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any reliable secondary sources talking about those for Lee so far. The article should only exist in mainspace if/when Lee begins to have direct impacts on land and reliable sources start talking about it. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:OSE is not an argument for deletion or keeping. Every article needs to be independently assessed for notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Every Category 5 hurricane makes it on the news, but we don't have articles on all of them, only those that impact land. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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.