- 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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017)
[edit]- Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This isn't a remarkable event: it has precedent, not just in this basin but in other basins as well. In fact, if we relax the requirement that they all be hurricanes at the exact same moment, the Atlantic has had four or more at once before. This deserves no more than a mention in List of Atlantic hurricane records or Atlantic hurricane. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is significantly covered in reliable sources, including the references, more are available, and therefore satisfies all notability criteria. Just because it has a few precedents in the past, which are now years ago, it is a rare event. In particular, all three made landfall, were predicted to do so, and warnings were issued. This is unique from 2010 as stated in the article. In any case, notability criteria has been satisfied. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is a bunch of coverage demonstrating being worthy of notice or worthy of note (per GNG and so on): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Also, see the article references... --Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, there are indeed reliable secondary sources which discuss the topic at length, and yet I think this is also essentially coverage of a specific news event. With that specific event have lasting notability over time? As other enormously destructive hurricane seasons occur, it may not stand out particularly in the historical record. So I guess I'm a weak keep, but I see the argument to delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is the answer to a trivia question, not an encyclopedic topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The limited content of the page can easily be accommodated by 2017 Atlantic hurricane season and List of Atlantic hurricane records. I would consider the current awkward name of the article as a plausible search term, and see no reason to keep it as a redirect.TR 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Worth discussing in context, but not worth an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have been intending to expand the article, and I am attempting to do so. I think this could be an enduring notable event given that two out of three hurricanes were (or are) very high intensity - Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Jose. This has had widespread impact on populated areas and has been nationally and internationally noticed in the media WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:EFFECT. I also had in mind a name change since I began the article. I just used this one to get it into the main space and begin. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season and List of Atlantic hurricane records. I struck my "Keep" vote (see above). I have to agree that merge is the best option here. I can't see any way to expand this article and I don't see how this phenomenon has as much impact and notability than the hurricanes themselves. This will probably be only a footnote in the history of hurricanes, severe weather, meteorology, and so on. As the article's creator, I will request a close as merge over at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Also, we need someone who knows how to merge the relevant content into the appropriate articles. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, at least for now. There is certainly a legitimate claim of notability here as exposed by Steve Quinn's sources, even though the user has switched to "merge". I agree that this may be a case where NOTNEWS comes into play but contrary to Jasper Deng's claim we cannot tell whether the topic will have enduring notability until some time has passed (or until we met a time traveller from the future or Special:PredictFuture is enabled, but either is very unlikely). And then, and only then, can we properly assess whether the topic fails NOTNEWS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Jo-Jo. This pretty much expresses my sentiments and how I perceived this AfD in the first place. It is way too early. I dropped my Merge ivote and changed back to Keep. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My take on this is the topic satisfies WP:LASTING. This topic is the incubator for aggregate severe weather phenomena.
This topic is a catalyst for three substantial hurricanes which have caused and are causing widespread destruction and eventual rebuilding on a large scale. ...that has impacted literally millions of people, in particular due to mass evacuations; leveling Caribbean communities (and cities); huge storm surges that endanger and destroy - indeed a catalyst that has impacted large numbers of societies, communities; as well as families and evacuation destinations residing in other geographic locales.
- Please also note, per WP:LASTING:
[Besides the above], it may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable
. Hence, losing the continuity of this article to "merge" does not seem to be the appropriate course. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2017 season, per above arguments. This is a slightly unusual version of a common occurrence (multiple hurricanes in the Atlantic in September). Determining its lasting notability should be built upon reputable, scholarly sources, not clickbait websites and news services. SounderBruce 20:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this logic then we should throw out all new hurricane articles, and many new articles of other topics. These are not clickbate news sources, many are reliable sources that are alluded to in the various notability criteria. And I would prefer scholarly sources, but there aren't any studies out on the 2017 hurricane season just yet. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Come back when we have any sources that have gone through full peer review (for climatology sources) or scholarly secondary historical sources, and don't push the fringe theory that news reports are secondary sources for history. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nyttend - please don't push the fringe theory that this is a fringe theory. There is no such policy or guideline that says I have to go through full peer review for "climatology sources" or scholarly sources and so on. We might as well throw out all the recent hurricane articles based on that criteria. Please stop making up rules for editing on Wikipedia. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly talk to members of my committee, or try to convince one of them to publish an article in his periodical, to suggest that news reports become considered secondary sources. Until then, don't insult my intelligence with your definition of secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true, these sources would not be acceptable for a prestigious academic journal. I would prefer scholarly sources, but there aren't any studies out on the 2017 hurricane season just yet ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10 of 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:*Not --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Original and arbitrary synthesis of a new topic from three distinct weather events that are already covered in appropriate depth in other articles. That the storms are individually notable does not change this, and the argument that we must keep this page for the purpose of alerting people to the dangers of climate change falls squarely under righting great wrongs. I'd also suggest that the article creator step back and avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion; their rebuttals are increasingly without any new insight. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or reduce to disambiguation page - The three hurricanes have their own articles/sections, which makes this article redundant. —CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and what I mean by merge is including a sentence or two about there being three hurricanes at once in the seasonal summary - something that is not currently in there as of last check. There is no point in having such a stubby article - I don't care if it meets GNG or not - if everything could be covered in a respective parent article, which fortunately, there is. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge very selectively into 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. For the reasons highlighted above, it's a content fork from this article, and worthy of a few lines in that articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Straight delete - Theres is nothing of any substance that is correct to merge into 2017 AHS. For example: "Three hurricane landfall advisories were issued by the NHC" - NHC does not issued any advisories or warnings specifically for a landfall hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was originally going to go with merge, but after thinking and reading about it a bit more, it seems like neither the article nor the sources really make an argument that this is an actual notable event that was covered independent of the general 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Since there is little to no sourced text to transfer over anyways and the title isn't particularly searchable, there's no need to keep it around. ansh666 02:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At first I thought that this might be something that belongs in the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia, but I now see that this doesn't even belong there because it is not a record. We have articles about the hurricane season and the individual hurricanes where this can be mentioned if verifiable from reliable secondary sources (i.e. not sensational news reports), but I see no reason to have a separate article about it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the content can be easily incorporated in the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article, and the awkward wording makes it a poor candidate for a redirect. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2017 (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.