Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/1998 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

1998 Pacific hurricane season

4 articles

I am nominating this topic for removal because 3 months ago, when the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season was up for GTC, it was agreed that this topic needed a Timeline of the 1998 Pacific hurricane season FL adding. Further, it was agreed that a retention of three months would be set for this to be added. However this time has now passed and the article hasn't even been created - rst20xx (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - obvious gap in the topic and the timeline hasn't even been created yet the entire retention has gone by. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per my comments belowJason Rees (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose as well (brief coming out of retirement), as the co-nominator of the original topic. I don't think it should be forced that a season should have a timeline. The WPTC has had several debates on the usefulness of timelines, and each time there were strong opinions on both sides. As there isn't an absolute, clear agreement, I don't think they should be forced to be included in the topic. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would be interested to hear Juliancolton's opinions on this, seeing as how he agreed to these retentions in the first place... rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that timelines are useful and informative, and that ideally, all recent hurricane seasons should get one. However, as Hurricanehink says, there have been numerous debates regarding seasonal timelines, none of which have been conclusive. Indeed, if I recall correctly, a couple editors actually object to the creation of timelines outside of highly active hurricane seasons. Given that there is no consensus on whether or not season articles must be accompanied by these lists, I don't think it's appropriate to delist the topics at this time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case I guess I'm neutral on this. It just would have been a whole lot easier if you could have said that from the start... :/ :P rst20xx (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in hindsight I think my support of the retention period was a bit rash... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to keep - rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]