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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

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

The article is a complete content fork of the article 1997 Atlantic hurricane season. The latter is the main article and is the same format as most other seasons. The timeline presents a different format, which highlights every category change. However, due to the low activity of the year, the main season article already covers all of the information found in the timeline. Furthermore, there were no simultaneous storms (which some might argue would lend useful to the timeline format). Therefore, I propose the timeline be deleted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There a are of lot of good timelines around Wikipedia, but this is not one of them, as it is, as Hurricanehink stated, a content fork and serves very little purpose besides depicting the category changes. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

odelete plz. Auree ★ 23:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Hink. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1997 Atlantic hurricane season. No need for a seperate article(changed to keep, see below), it is however, a likely search term. Perhaps some of the information, specific times etc, could be incorporated into the existing article in which case it would not be appropriate to delete the contribution history. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of the info in the timeline is already in the main article, with the minor exception of the exact timing and location of Danny's landfall and each category change for Erika. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article covers it, and I doubt this will be a common search term. First Light (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have several articles with similar titles differing only in the year. Someone might use the search function for different years. So I see no harm in redirecting.Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep Many of the atlantic hurricane season articles have these accompanying timeline articles, see this search result. It seems like a standard format to link to these articles in the "Storms" section, as a more succint way of summarising the events as a function of time. I'm changing my !vote to keep because it is not appropriate to delete one article for one year from what looks to be a consistent and systematic method of organising information for all years. Deletion would require a much wider discussion including all of the "Timeline of the yyyy Atlantic hurricane season" articles and not just this one. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we realize that it is standard format for a season to have a timeline. However, as for the case here, it is being nominated because the Timeline is basically a content fork, basically just repeating what is in the season article. What's the purpose of something that just repeats what is in another's article? Additionally, the season had very little in the way of Impact to any landmasses, which is typically a big part of a timeline. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise until I checked, it wasn't clear in the nomination, not all users reading and commenting on AfD will have a background in editing hurricane articles. I still say keep as it seems a nice consistent manner to summarise the events as a function of time and I feel a wider discussion is first required as to the purpose of all timeline articles as a whole (unless you can point to that discussion/policy/guideline) since most contain at the very least partial content forking. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pah hink. HurricaneFan 25 12:14, 10 October 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.