- 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 Prevailing winds. Despite an unpersuasive vote that seemed unsure of what it wanted, the clear consensus was to redirect the article. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Global wind patterns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is the same topic as Prevailing winds, except it's unsourced and written poorly. There have been merger discussions on the talk pages but with little participation. Delete and redirect to Prevailing winds. KingAnd God 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect Prevailing winds Lite - same subject, less content, with no refs to fatten you up at all! -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep/merge The topic is quite notable – see the Teacher's Weather Source, for example – and probably requires several pages such as atmospheric circulation. Per our editing policy, there's no case for deletion and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- The case is not notability but having two articles about the same thing. Merging, as you said, is a matter of ordinary editing which is why I suggested deletion because it offers a similar outcome (eliminating the second article). @ Andrew Davidson: what do you mean by "keep/merge"? Should there be two articles about the same topic? KingAnd God 17:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Merger and deletion are not the same thing. Deletion removes the edit history and the alternative title. Such wanton destruction is not our editing policy. We prefer alternatives to deletion, as deletion is a last resort, not the first option any time there's some sort of issue. Please see WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Andrew D. ( talk) 18:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- This article is uncited. The target article is rated good. I am not sure what can be merged which will improve the target article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to prevailing winds. There's no need to delete the page before doing so, because there is nothing that needs scrubbing (e.g., copyright violations). XOR'easter ( talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- ? Proposal was originally discussed on SpikeballUnion's talk. There was no clear conclusion. The article is a beginner's introduction and presents the basic information more clearly than either Atmospheric circulation or Prevailing winds. These two articles are very similar and both need a bit of work to extract the basic facts. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prevailing winds. There's nothing in this article that could plausibly be merged. Reyk YO! 08:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- ? I assume this got started because I failed to remove the obsolete merge tag from last June. It would be equally reasonable to redirect to Atmospheric circulation, the two proposed redirects being nearly the same. No one is a fit judge of his own work, but my POV is that all knowledge is a hierarchy. I prefer a simple outline of the basic facts before digging deeper. Global wind patterns is what you get when you work on either of the two articles and throw away the details. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2018 (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.
- 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 Prevailing winds. Despite an unpersuasive vote that seemed unsure of what it wanted, the clear consensus was to redirect the article. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Global wind patterns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is the same topic as Prevailing winds, except it's unsourced and written poorly. There have been merger discussions on the talk pages but with little participation. Delete and redirect to Prevailing winds. KingAnd God 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect Prevailing winds Lite - same subject, less content, with no refs to fatten you up at all! -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep/merge The topic is quite notable – see the Teacher's Weather Source, for example – and probably requires several pages such as atmospheric circulation. Per our editing policy, there's no case for deletion and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- The case is not notability but having two articles about the same thing. Merging, as you said, is a matter of ordinary editing which is why I suggested deletion because it offers a similar outcome (eliminating the second article). @ Andrew Davidson: what do you mean by "keep/merge"? Should there be two articles about the same topic? KingAnd God 17:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Merger and deletion are not the same thing. Deletion removes the edit history and the alternative title. Such wanton destruction is not our editing policy. We prefer alternatives to deletion, as deletion is a last resort, not the first option any time there's some sort of issue. Please see WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Andrew D. ( talk) 18:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- This article is uncited. The target article is rated good. I am not sure what can be merged which will improve the target article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to prevailing winds. There's no need to delete the page before doing so, because there is nothing that needs scrubbing (e.g., copyright violations). XOR'easter ( talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- ? Proposal was originally discussed on SpikeballUnion's talk. There was no clear conclusion. The article is a beginner's introduction and presents the basic information more clearly than either Atmospheric circulation or Prevailing winds. These two articles are very similar and both need a bit of work to extract the basic facts. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prevailing winds. There's nothing in this article that could plausibly be merged. Reyk YO! 08:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- ? I assume this got started because I failed to remove the obsolete merge tag from last June. It would be equally reasonable to redirect to Atmospheric circulation, the two proposed redirects being nearly the same. No one is a fit judge of his own work, but my POV is that all knowledge is a hierarchy. I prefer a simple outline of the basic facts before digging deeper. Global wind patterns is what you get when you work on either of the two articles and throw away the details. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2018 (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.