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. There is clear consensus that this should not be a stand-alone article. It's hazier whether it should be deleted or merged someplace. For now, I'm calling this delete, and if anybody wants reference to the original text so they can add that to someplace, it can be userfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm 60W (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)

After somewhat lengthy discussion among members of the Tropical Cyclone project, we've been unable to reach a consensus on what to do with this article. In short, this storm fails to meet notability criteria in any sense and is by and large a generic system that had no impact. It's a prime example of a source dump on WP of an event that has no real other place to go as it doesn't warrant much mention. We've been cutting down on cyclone articles of storms that are routine, namely those with little or no impact unless they're meteorologically notable (such as a Category 5 over open waters).

Since it's officially considered a non-tropical system, it has no real place within the 2006 Pacific typhoon season, which is where we've somewhat agreed upon it should be kept to should removing it entirely not be an option. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Secret ^account 00:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge why shouldn't this exist as part of 2006 PTS assuming we have an RS (SAB) that considered this a TC? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think a merge is appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per YE. —CycloneIsaac (Talk) 22:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The SAB dont tell us that it was a tropical cyclone. I would not object to a line in the 2006 PTS other storms section though.Jason Rees (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - largely a fluff piece that could easily be reconstituted into 1 or 2 sentences within the seasonal article. As it stands now, the article makes no credible testament to its subject's notability ("unusual" in the opening sentence, but that is not backed up by any sources). It's essentially a conventional low pressure system that was not recognized as a tropical cyclone and had no impact on land. With apologies to the article creator, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:07, 28 June 2014 (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.