The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Juliancolton (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Eugene (2011)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. Poorly written, already has a decent season section, contains OR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It wasn't very notable as well as the fact that the article is very poorly written. Curtis23 talk to me 23:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition, the articles fails MoS standards, having the references formatted like external links. Further more, the meteorological history is very short for a storm like this, and is shorter than the lead, then it probably would be like a 4 times larger than the lead. Finally, the impact from the precursor tropical wave is not mentioned on either reference.--12george1 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It wasn't very notable to begin with, and it didn't need an article in the first place. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no land impacts, poorly written, non-WPTC standard-compliant, etc. HurricaneFan 25 00:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.