Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion and related pages

Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion and related pages

Nomination includes Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion, Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/June Tropical Discussion, Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/July Tropical Discussion, and Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/August Tropical Discussion

Delete. WP:NOT a discussion forum, these "predictions" are only partially scientific and have no value to the article. In addition, Wikipedia's Tropical cyclone articles have been mentioned in by a reputable scientific publication in this field, these would draw a bad name to them. Nilfanion (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Chacor 15:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- any evidence of the claim by the scientists being true because i cant find it in any of the talk pages or its archives. Storm05 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1] Chacor 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Gary Pidgget mentions using wikipedia as source but he does not critizie or repute it. Storm05 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. He mentioned some articles that he thought were good. We'd like to keep that here. There's no point for the discussions. If you want to discuss things that might or not develop by looking at a blob of convection, go to a Hurricane forum. This site is about existing storms, and storms that have potential per the NHC (invests). Delete all of them. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        As I stated on Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season, I doubt the average person who is linked through this site is going to discover this and take it seriously. Any intelligent person should know that these are not official predictions and merely express the opinions of the users. bob rulz 08:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've never liked them either. Delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't mind seeing these go. Wikipedia is not Storm2k - any discussion here should be on actual storms or invests. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, if you plan to get rid of these, get rid of the EPAC versions, as well. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Spinning them off into subpages does not do anybody any harm. If people don't want to look at it, they don't have to, as they are on subpages. Anybody who does not want to be involved in these discussions does not have to be. In addition, I don't believe that talking about these potential areas of development in the Atlantic is any different than talking about an INVEST (which is, by the way, also a "potential area for development"). bob rulz 08:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the problem with AoI's (which these pages cover), is that they frequently are not a "potential area for development" but "lets beat the professionals at their own game". If you read a typical AoI in the May discussion it is "I saw a swirl of clouds its a TC!". INVESTs are potential areas for development which typically return (low) Dvorak readings. An AoI is pretty much guaranteed to score "TOO WEAK". INVESTs are also designated by professional meteorologists, as opposed to Wikipedians, who actually make some assessment about the chance of development. The discussion on the main pages does typically refer to models and the like, these don't.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm changing my mind after reading bob rulz' explanation. While I wouldn't mind seeing them go, I also don't really think they're doing any harm in staying. Maybe move it to something in the project namespace where things are a little more relaxed. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]