Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1950 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

1950 Atlantic hurricane season

6 articles

Contributor(s): Hurricanehink

First hurricane nomination in a while! Over the past year I've been working to get this to good topic, so here it is. The sub-articles are based on the individual storms with enough info to have an article, and none of those without articles have enough info to make an article. I hope you enjoy it - this is the first season where storms are named! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - worthwhile/notable season and the content seems unified enough to justify promotion to GT, as long as the necessary updates are made once HURDAT comes around. Juliancolton (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I will, but I have a feeling it'll be a while, given they're only at 1925 (and the preliminary analysis of 1944-1953 was just a student's paper, albeit a highly-researched one). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2011-01-06T22:38Z (UTC)
Any reason why this topic does not include a timeline article? Nergaal (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think hurricane timelines are useless and redundant, that's the main reason ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What did the wikiproject decide about this? I remember more than a year ago that there was a debate about having or not such lists. If the consensus is to have such lists, FT shouldn't override it; if not, then the existing timelines should be AfDed/merged into the season ones and then the topics nominated for article removals. Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no firm agreement whether timelines should exist or not, that's sort of the issue. For example, the 1994 PHS doesn't have a timeline, and that's a GT. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Have you tried FLRCing the existing timeline FLs?
        No, but in the past, I have done an FARC for an article that I did not believe should have existed, and they said how that wasn't the right venue, that AFD was the right place. Suffice it to say, I'd rather not propose the deletion of several lists (not yet and not without some sort of project consensus, which doesn't exist yet). I'd also like to point out this discussion, fwiw. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I wold strongly suggest FLRCing any list timelines that is repetitious since more recently people have become more stringent about wp:CFORK. Nergaal (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Worthwhile article, with all good articles, and even a featured article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]