Participation was limited, but the only keep vote, which I presume was yours, did not provide a policy-based reason for keeping. No evidence of notability was put forward, and no evidence was put forward to show that a standalone page was needed. Rather than wasting more community time here, and (if relisted) at AfD again, why not expand the target article yourself? A merger does not rule out a future spinoff if sufficient encyclopedic material is found. Vanamonde (
Talk)00:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist, as AFC accepting reviewer, meaning that I thought it had a >50% change of passing AFD. The guidelines for tropical storm articles are vague, so that both a strict interpretation and an expansive interpretation are consistent with the guideline, and AFDs show that lack of clarity.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
09:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse, there is no need to relist a deletion discussion in which nobody - even the nominator - has argued for deletion. The debate about whether to merge or not can, if necessary, continue in article talk space without the need for a misleading and ugly red box on an article. In this case, considering the lack of any policy-based rationale for the "keep" vote, I think Vanamonde's closure of merge is reasonable. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the lone keep vote was not at all based in policy, while the nom and other merge vote properly cited
WP:NWEATHER and
WP:NOPAGE as to why this subject is not notable as a stand-alone article. While more participation would have been ideal, it is not a requirement to assess consensus. FrankAnchor17:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The merge side is IMO substantially stronger (citing
WP:NEVENTS and
WP:NOPAGE compared with the lone keep vote, which opined it was notable and participants could look into more information without specifying a policy or guideline. VickKiang(talk)21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The storm is fundamentally notable. It killed 1-4 people and caused $7.6 million in damage(which is a lot in Mexico), and we have articles on a lot of less significant US storms. Seems like ethnocentrism to me.
100.12.169.218 (
talk)
21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Participation was limited, but the only keep vote, which I presume was yours, did not provide a policy-based reason for keeping. No evidence of notability was put forward, and no evidence was put forward to show that a standalone page was needed. Rather than wasting more community time here, and (if relisted) at AfD again, why not expand the target article yourself? A merger does not rule out a future spinoff if sufficient encyclopedic material is found. Vanamonde (
Talk)00:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist, as AFC accepting reviewer, meaning that I thought it had a >50% change of passing AFD. The guidelines for tropical storm articles are vague, so that both a strict interpretation and an expansive interpretation are consistent with the guideline, and AFDs show that lack of clarity.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
09:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse, there is no need to relist a deletion discussion in which nobody - even the nominator - has argued for deletion. The debate about whether to merge or not can, if necessary, continue in article talk space without the need for a misleading and ugly red box on an article. In this case, considering the lack of any policy-based rationale for the "keep" vote, I think Vanamonde's closure of merge is reasonable. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the lone keep vote was not at all based in policy, while the nom and other merge vote properly cited
WP:NWEATHER and
WP:NOPAGE as to why this subject is not notable as a stand-alone article. While more participation would have been ideal, it is not a requirement to assess consensus. FrankAnchor17:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The merge side is IMO substantially stronger (citing
WP:NEVENTS and
WP:NOPAGE compared with the lone keep vote, which opined it was notable and participants could look into more information without specifying a policy or guideline. VickKiang(talk)21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The storm is fundamentally notable. It killed 1-4 people and caused $7.6 million in damage(which is a lot in Mexico), and we have articles on a lot of less significant US storms. Seems like ethnocentrism to me.
100.12.169.218 (
talk)
21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply