User talk:Cutlass

Reminder on WP:BEFORE

Hey Cutlass. To say the least, I was shocked to wake up to an AfD for the article which I was planning to GAN this morning… But nonetheless, I wanted to give you a quick reminder on WP:BEFORE since you AfDed the article, no discussion and no PROD less than 26 hours after it was created. Coincidentally, you used WP:LASTING as one of your arguments, but you somehow seem to forgot the event occurred 3 days ago? How on earth could there be lasting coverage when it occurred 3 days ago?? I wrote the article 2 days after the event occurred, giving it enough time to see some lasting-level coverage. Out of curiosity, I casually did a Google search and one hour ago is an entire news article about the tornado ([1]). All of that was to say you might want to check out WP:BEFORE and consider alternatives to deletion (in this case, merging into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023, the parent outbreak article OR Tornadoes of 2023, the parent of the outbreak article) or at the very least wait to actually see if there isn’t lasting coverage. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not notable. The tornado itself is an event that should be located inside of the outbreak article, as many other tornadoes are, such as the Bowling Green, KY one of December 10, 2021. I did outline in the AfD that the article, in my opinion, should not exist, because ideally this should be covered inside of the parent outbreak. In addition, WP:DEPTH also applies, a good amount of those articles are repeating the same points. Cutlass^Ciera 18:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So you actually support a merge then…You did just prove my point that you forgot WP:BEFORE, since you are really in support of a merge, but choose to do a week-long Afd instead of a requested merge. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that was my bad, but my original point still stands. Cutlass^Ciera 18:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd avoid dying on the "merge" hill since the way articles are structured, and the way the current summary on the outbreak page is structured, it is a given that after article deletion the tornado would be summarized on the outbreak page. I don't believe there is a problem with how Cutlass responded. I feel it's dissonant to both support the article under the reason of "planning to GAN it" but also recognize there are issues regarding WP:LASTING on it. I don't think this event is worthy of GAN nor of an article yet. Wikiwillz (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. By merge, I meant that having a summary of the tornado on the oubreak page would be good, but for sure not the way the current article is structured, which in my like would mean WP:TNTing the page and starting a new summary, mainly due to the amount of bloat that exists in the current form (e.g. intricate detail that serves no other purpose). Cutlass^Ciera 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sumedang tornado?

Hey Cutlass. I wanted to ask if you could withdraw your AfD nomination for the 2024 Sumedang tornado. The AfD already has 2 delete !votes (plus yours). If you withdraw the AfD, I would be more than happy to bold merge/redirect that article. Due to past issues, I cannot and will not redirect/merge the article while the AfD is ongoing, meaning deleting it is being held up on the technicality of the seven-day AfD. So please, withdraw the AfD so myself or you even could merge/redirect the article to Tornadoes of 2024. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)