- 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 redirect to List of extreme weather events. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weather in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of only 4 "Weather by year" articles (I am bundling the others in this nomination). Lot of unsourced material that has been tagged for years. WP is not a weather service. At best we can merge selected items into List of extreme weather events. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- Weather in 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- World weather in 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- World Weather in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Redirect All to List of extreme weather events. The material is not sourced on the page itself, but it appears to be a summary of main articles that are sourced. My biggest complaint is the title doesn't really suggest what is actually is (a summary of notable weather events - which isn't WP:WEATHER) and I find it unlikely that somebody will search Wikipedia for "weather in 2006", as opposed to a specific weather event in one of the linked articles. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are also sections with "predictions" like you can see in the 2007 article. Multiple issues with most of them. I agree that the names are poor. If kept they could be renamed to "Extreme weather events in 2006" or something like that. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect all per above. This kind of looks like a huge mess and something should be done to try to standardize all this. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or merge) agree fully with nominator's rationale – article prone to WP:OR Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:09, 29 January 2012 (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.