Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning in a tropical cyclone

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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning in a tropical cyclone

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

This is a tricky one. After several years of being a userspace draft, this became an article last year, but some months later it was converted into a redirect to Tropical cyclone. This redirect was the subject of a long discussion at RFD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16) that I've just now closed as no-consensus: nobody favored keeping it as a redirect to its current target, but people were split between sending it to a new target and trashing it entirely, although the trash-it-entirely produced concerns about whether it were good to delete the whole page's history. I've restored the article in order to make it more convenient for AFD; nobody's supported keeping it as a separate article, but it works for temporary purposes and as an excuse to come to AFD.

All this said, I'm bringing this here as a way of getting outside input on the page. You can suggest retaining it as an article or restoring it as a redirect to tropical cyclone, but I'd advise against it because nobody supported those routes. Consequently, I'm strongly suggesting that you support deletion or advocate the RFD suggestion of making it a redirect to lightning, although you could also propose a different target. I'm aware that this is unusual and not the normal use of AFD, but this is an IAR situation; it's convoluted and can't simply be resolved through our normal processes. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Nyttend for taking this step. I'm equally comfortable with a keep or delete outcome. A merge may not be necessary, but what I really don't want to see is another redirect to an article where the subject of lightning in a tropical cyclone isn't discussed. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please show up who isn't equally comfortable with both :-) Or if you are, please agree to a supervote if we don't get consensus here. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from what I remember from the Rfd discussion (it was some time ago) we roughly established that lightning occurs by the same mechanism in any sort of storm, so lightning which occurs in a tropical cyclone is no different from lightning which occurs in storms generally. It's not ball lightning or something that is clearly (or likely) not regular lightning where there has been separate or focused scientific study. We might just as well create lightning over water or lightning striking a maple tree or lightning in a refrigerator as redirects to the lightning article. I'm not opposed to keeping the redirect per WP:CHEAP since it already exists and is harmless, but this should not be a separate article, and there is nothing to merge. Thanks Nyttend for bringing this here, I think this discussion will be a good resolution to the Rfd stalemate. Ivanvector (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would make a good redirect if there was anywhere suitable to point it, but as the best we can come up with is just plain lightning, where it isn't discussed specifically (and my recollection is similar to Ivanvector's) I'm not opposed to a deletion, sorry Nyttend! I do thank you for bringing this here though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I just don't want this to end in "no consensus" as well; that's why it would be nice if people would "officially" agree to let the closing admin to supervote if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to closing admin I notified all of the RFD participants about this AFD upon opening it. My meaning is probably clear enough already, but in case it's not...I'm strongly in favor of deleting-or-redirect-to-lightning, i.e. I really don't want anything else to happen, but I'm neutral between those two options. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lightning in a tropical cyclone in and of itself is not notable. The only plausible redirect would be to lightning; however, lightning in tropical cyclones is not mentioned there, and it does not really make sense to add it in there specifically because there is nothing really unique about it. I find it unlikely that people will directly type "Lightning in a tropical cyclone" into the URL, so that rationale for keeping the redirect is out. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per basically my rationale at the RFD; however, in the case of it being an article, it just seems incomplete, and too specific. Anything that is or could be mentioned here should be at Lightning, but as I can tell right now, I don't see a good option for pointing this title specifically to a section in Lightning. Best to let this go away, for now. (Also, Nyttend, thanks for pinging me!) Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's really no reason to redirect it. Otherwise, we'd need redirects for "Lightning in Iowa," and "Lightning in Argentina," etc. etc. There's probably plenty of articles about both, but so what if there's nothing fundamentally different about this type of lightning? PianoDan (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LWC summed up my feelings about the subject. Lightning, while rare near the eye-wall of a mature tropical cyclone, is a common byproduct of thunderstorms and really can not stand in an article by itself as a specific happening. I've read about hail in the eye-wall which is a rarer occurrence, but just the same, it is just a meteorological phenomenon that is already covered in its respective article. Supportstorm (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (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.