Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research on tornadoes in 2024

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 merge‎ to History of tornado research. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research on tornadoes in 2024

[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)

This is a niche topic that fails WP:N and is likely WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing is inherently notable about routine tornado research that requires a Wikipedia article to be written about it. United States Man (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge — Several RS articles written about tornadic research this year: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Several lists are similar to this one including 2024 in climate change. Key to note, this article is a split from a parent article, History of tornado research. The 2024 article is nearly half the size of the parent article. So no matter what, deletion should never have been proposed, given it is a split-off article from the parent article…a merge proposal would have been better either into the parent history article or Tornadoes of 2024, which has a research section linking to this article as the “main”. That said, I think it has clearly enough RS and peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up notability. If consensus was falling more in line with a merge or deletion, I would support a merge over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article looks like someone typed "tornado" into Web of Science, with "2024" as the publication year, and wrote a brief summary of the abstract of every single paper that came up. Completely indiscriminate collection of routine, incremental research findings that nowhere is discussed in the aggregate as a particularly notable topic. As for it being spun off from History of tornado research, it never should have been put in that article in the first place. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the world's knowledge, not archive the world's press releases and abstracts. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: WP:LISTCRUFT.

On second thought, I wouldn't mind a merge. SirMemeGod  13:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least I would support a merge into History of tornado research#2024. Procyon117 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WeatherWriter. I see no net benefit for the encyclopedia by deleting it. It could be trimmed and organized a bit, perhaps.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. 2024 at least deserves a section on History of tornado research. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are very different opinions on what should happen with this article and its content so I'm giving this discussion more time in hopes of achieving a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of tornado research. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of tornado research. This article meets at least two criteria for WP:LISTCRUFT (#1 and #2). At best, it can be trimmed and some of the information merged into the other article. Keeping it would invite an article for 2025 and 2026 and 2027 ad infinitum. Such articles are not needed as WP:STANDALONE - expanding the original article will be enough. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As copyeditor, this article seems really useful to some (also per WeatherWriter). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still isn't a clear outcome from this discussion as of yet. I'm relisting this for perhaps more input into this discussion and a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: An abridged version of this article should be included in History of tornado research. SirBrahms (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of tornado research - I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG on its own. That is, we would need significant, independent coverage of tornado research in 2024. However, it's a perfectly valid page split; it should be merged back to History of tornado research where, if after considerations of WP:DUE (focusing on secondary coverage of research rather than primary research results), it could be split again in the future. Suriname0 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/weak merge – Not really inclined to support deletion; probably going to stay out of this largely. But might weakly support a merge per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:51, 30 October 2024 (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.