The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After several years of discussion, there has arisen a need to have a proper discussion on the featured article of Tropical Storm Erick (2007). Tropical Storm Erick (2007) was created in 2008, becoming a test to see how far the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject should go in terms of creating articles for lesser notable storms. The storm lasted for 42 hours in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The author took it to FAC twice, and on the second time it got promoted in December of 2008.
Since then, I have changed my attitude over whether storms that did not affect land should get articles, and I proposed it for both deletion and FAR. People at AFD didn't think it should get deleted, since it would have been a merger to the 2007 Pacific hurricane season article. The closing admin said "AFD isn't really the right place for a merger discussion, take it to Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion", which is a defunct project. I suppose I should note, Erick was one of 11 named storms in the season. Many such low-notable storm articles have been merged, due to a significant lack of independent sources. Erick had brief mentions in newspapers, and was also given a report by the National Hurricane Center (as did all other storms that year). There isn't a strong notability guideline for hurricanes. We had a loose consensus that a storm had to have sources that were outside of the warning center (since all storms have sources from the warning center).
There has been a renewed discussion on what to do with the article, since it is currently a bit of an anomaly within the project. Some argue it should be kept since it is featured, but I argue that it shouldn't remain featured if it doesn't meet the general Wikipedia notability guidelines (not to mention how short it is).
The reason behind the RFC is twofold. First, does the storm meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Second, how its featured article status should be dealt with. As noted earlier, the earlier FAR had issues with regards to the notability question, so simply opening an FAR wouldn't solve the issue, nor would an AFD. Although this RFC is primarily to deal with Erick (since there aren't many other articles left on short-lived storms that did not affect land), it could have larger impact on the project, ideally in the form of commentary from people outside of the project.
It is advised to maintain decorum on this page, discussing issues in a civilized manner and staying on topic. If you have any questions about the process, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Regards, Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs)
Well, to begin with, the article appears to be verifiable. Y E Pacific Hurricane 02:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
While storms like Erick are not the most notable thing ever, it follows all the guidelines of WP:CRYSTAL, or any of the WP:NOT guidelines. As long as it has multiple sources and verifibility, it meets the criteria. -- TheAustinMan( Talk| Works) 19:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Consider, if you will, two of Wikipedia's long-established policies as explained at
WP:NGEO and
WP:GARAGEBAND. (Be patient, I will bring it back around to tropical storms in a moment):
Now before anyone trots out the old "that's an essay, not a policy!" argument, the reality is that some essays are based upon policy, and I could, if needed, replace a reference to
WP:NGEO or
WP:GARAGEBAND with a
massive wall of text that references policies, guidelines, and existing consensus, with the end result being a poorly-written duplicate of
WP:NGEO or
WP:GARAGEBAND.
Consider
WP:NGEO:
"..On Wikipedia, the notability of some geographical places is sometimes called into question. The purpose of this page is to define the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion, to avoid wasting time on unnecessary AFDs, and to provide general guidance to those wondering about the notability of a given piece of geography.
Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low. It is important though, when notability is challenged, to reliably document that a place is legally recognized in some way. Examples include government recognition of the place as a municipality or region, or recognition by a government agency such as the United States Census Bureau as a place (in this specific case, it would be called a census-designated place). AFDs of articles where no one disputes that the place legally exists are almost always closed early by overwhelming consensus to keep."
What this comes down to is "every village is notable, including the village of
Narband."
Now consider
WP:GARAGEBAND:
"There are a great number of subjects about which no one cares on Wikipedia. With new bands this is especially important to keep in mind, given that nearly 1⁄4 of new pages are about a 'garage band' (so-called because of their tendency to only ever play in their parents' garage)"
What this comes down to is "Most garage bands are not notable, including
Dave and the Detomics."
By any objective criteria, Narband is less notable than Dave and the Detomics, so why do we have different criteria? And how does this relate to Tropical Storm Erick?
The key is that there are a finite number of villages that meet our rather loose criteria, and no easy way to create another hundred or so. Thus, we will eventually run out of villages to include and it does no harm to include them all. It is trivial to create a new garage band, and if we include them all the number or articles will grow without limit. That's why Narband gets a Wikipedia page while the more notable Dave and the Detomics does not.
So, based upon the fact that there are far fewer named storms than there are villages, I conclude that Tropical Storm Erick should have a page on Wikipedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
<--To Guy Macon, I agree every populated village should get an article. But, as I said, there isn't an overreaching article that would lump multiple villages together. The closest would be a county in the US, but that wouldn't cover the history and other information for every city therein. The season articles contain every single named storm from each season (among other systems), and goes into detail for each of those storms. Erick is only notable in the history books as being a part of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season as part of that season's statistics. Unless, are you proposing that we get rid of the season articles as well? Just take a look at the season article, and take notice of the redundancies, if you wouldn't mind. As for Yellow Evan, I agree, storms should not get articles unless their information overwhelms the section in the main article, per the rules of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It shouldn't be something as simple as "all storms that affect land can get articles" (since there are problems with that too, what about a storm in 1890 that struck Florida but did nothing?). Therefore, if a storm had a lengthy meteorological history, it would be too long to fit in the season article so it would get an article. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
As a said earlier, the storm article goes more in depth about Erick than the season section (hence why there is a storm article). Y E Pacific Hurricane 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Erick (2007) is, by far, one of the least notable tropical cyclones within the East Pacific Basin, in my opinion. This storm broke no records or had any abnormal characteristics, such as an unusual path, long duration, and/or high intensity. Instead, Erick lasted only 48 hours, was a minimal tropical storm, and caused no known damage or fatalities. In the past, notability for this article has been established simply by mentioning that this storm had news coverage outside of the warning center. However, in a recent merge discussion for this article, I pointed out that even the least notable tropical cyclones like Tropical Storm Dennis in 1993 had multiple newspaper articles written about it. It is for that reason that I consider that argument to be invalid. Personally, I mass created numerous article between 2008 and 2010 on non-notable tropical cyclones. As a result, they were merged, which makes me question the existence of this article due to its lack of notability, in my opinion. It is for those reasons and more, that I believe this article should not be considered notable.-- 12george1 ( talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please keep discussion focused, and on topic
Regarding what Guy Macon said, there is already a place that mentions Tropical Storm Erick's place in history as a tropical storm, which is the 2007 Pacific hurricane season. Does that affect whether there should be an article for the individual storm? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Members of the community are invited to comment on the various proposals here, giving reasons as to why they support their preferred argument. This discussion is not a vote, and as per all discussions, comments will be weighed based on strength of argument.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After several years of discussion, there has arisen a need to have a proper discussion on the featured article of Tropical Storm Erick (2007). Tropical Storm Erick (2007) was created in 2008, becoming a test to see how far the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject should go in terms of creating articles for lesser notable storms. The storm lasted for 42 hours in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The author took it to FAC twice, and on the second time it got promoted in December of 2008.
Since then, I have changed my attitude over whether storms that did not affect land should get articles, and I proposed it for both deletion and FAR. People at AFD didn't think it should get deleted, since it would have been a merger to the 2007 Pacific hurricane season article. The closing admin said "AFD isn't really the right place for a merger discussion, take it to Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion", which is a defunct project. I suppose I should note, Erick was one of 11 named storms in the season. Many such low-notable storm articles have been merged, due to a significant lack of independent sources. Erick had brief mentions in newspapers, and was also given a report by the National Hurricane Center (as did all other storms that year). There isn't a strong notability guideline for hurricanes. We had a loose consensus that a storm had to have sources that were outside of the warning center (since all storms have sources from the warning center).
There has been a renewed discussion on what to do with the article, since it is currently a bit of an anomaly within the project. Some argue it should be kept since it is featured, but I argue that it shouldn't remain featured if it doesn't meet the general Wikipedia notability guidelines (not to mention how short it is).
The reason behind the RFC is twofold. First, does the storm meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Second, how its featured article status should be dealt with. As noted earlier, the earlier FAR had issues with regards to the notability question, so simply opening an FAR wouldn't solve the issue, nor would an AFD. Although this RFC is primarily to deal with Erick (since there aren't many other articles left on short-lived storms that did not affect land), it could have larger impact on the project, ideally in the form of commentary from people outside of the project.
It is advised to maintain decorum on this page, discussing issues in a civilized manner and staying on topic. If you have any questions about the process, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Regards, Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs)
Well, to begin with, the article appears to be verifiable. Y E Pacific Hurricane 02:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
While storms like Erick are not the most notable thing ever, it follows all the guidelines of WP:CRYSTAL, or any of the WP:NOT guidelines. As long as it has multiple sources and verifibility, it meets the criteria. -- TheAustinMan( Talk| Works) 19:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Consider, if you will, two of Wikipedia's long-established policies as explained at
WP:NGEO and
WP:GARAGEBAND. (Be patient, I will bring it back around to tropical storms in a moment):
Now before anyone trots out the old "that's an essay, not a policy!" argument, the reality is that some essays are based upon policy, and I could, if needed, replace a reference to
WP:NGEO or
WP:GARAGEBAND with a
massive wall of text that references policies, guidelines, and existing consensus, with the end result being a poorly-written duplicate of
WP:NGEO or
WP:GARAGEBAND.
Consider
WP:NGEO:
"..On Wikipedia, the notability of some geographical places is sometimes called into question. The purpose of this page is to define the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion, to avoid wasting time on unnecessary AFDs, and to provide general guidance to those wondering about the notability of a given piece of geography.
Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low. It is important though, when notability is challenged, to reliably document that a place is legally recognized in some way. Examples include government recognition of the place as a municipality or region, or recognition by a government agency such as the United States Census Bureau as a place (in this specific case, it would be called a census-designated place). AFDs of articles where no one disputes that the place legally exists are almost always closed early by overwhelming consensus to keep."
What this comes down to is "every village is notable, including the village of
Narband."
Now consider
WP:GARAGEBAND:
"There are a great number of subjects about which no one cares on Wikipedia. With new bands this is especially important to keep in mind, given that nearly 1⁄4 of new pages are about a 'garage band' (so-called because of their tendency to only ever play in their parents' garage)"
What this comes down to is "Most garage bands are not notable, including
Dave and the Detomics."
By any objective criteria, Narband is less notable than Dave and the Detomics, so why do we have different criteria? And how does this relate to Tropical Storm Erick?
The key is that there are a finite number of villages that meet our rather loose criteria, and no easy way to create another hundred or so. Thus, we will eventually run out of villages to include and it does no harm to include them all. It is trivial to create a new garage band, and if we include them all the number or articles will grow without limit. That's why Narband gets a Wikipedia page while the more notable Dave and the Detomics does not.
So, based upon the fact that there are far fewer named storms than there are villages, I conclude that Tropical Storm Erick should have a page on Wikipedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
<--To Guy Macon, I agree every populated village should get an article. But, as I said, there isn't an overreaching article that would lump multiple villages together. The closest would be a county in the US, but that wouldn't cover the history and other information for every city therein. The season articles contain every single named storm from each season (among other systems), and goes into detail for each of those storms. Erick is only notable in the history books as being a part of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season as part of that season's statistics. Unless, are you proposing that we get rid of the season articles as well? Just take a look at the season article, and take notice of the redundancies, if you wouldn't mind. As for Yellow Evan, I agree, storms should not get articles unless their information overwhelms the section in the main article, per the rules of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It shouldn't be something as simple as "all storms that affect land can get articles" (since there are problems with that too, what about a storm in 1890 that struck Florida but did nothing?). Therefore, if a storm had a lengthy meteorological history, it would be too long to fit in the season article so it would get an article. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
As a said earlier, the storm article goes more in depth about Erick than the season section (hence why there is a storm article). Y E Pacific Hurricane 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Erick (2007) is, by far, one of the least notable tropical cyclones within the East Pacific Basin, in my opinion. This storm broke no records or had any abnormal characteristics, such as an unusual path, long duration, and/or high intensity. Instead, Erick lasted only 48 hours, was a minimal tropical storm, and caused no known damage or fatalities. In the past, notability for this article has been established simply by mentioning that this storm had news coverage outside of the warning center. However, in a recent merge discussion for this article, I pointed out that even the least notable tropical cyclones like Tropical Storm Dennis in 1993 had multiple newspaper articles written about it. It is for that reason that I consider that argument to be invalid. Personally, I mass created numerous article between 2008 and 2010 on non-notable tropical cyclones. As a result, they were merged, which makes me question the existence of this article due to its lack of notability, in my opinion. It is for those reasons and more, that I believe this article should not be considered notable.-- 12george1 ( talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please keep discussion focused, and on topic
Regarding what Guy Macon said, there is already a place that mentions Tropical Storm Erick's place in history as a tropical storm, which is the 2007 Pacific hurricane season. Does that affect whether there should be an article for the individual storm? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Members of the community are invited to comment on the various proposals here, giving reasons as to why they support their preferred argument. This discussion is not a vote, and as per all discussions, comments will be weighed based on strength of argument.