Preamble

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)

Update: I made this back in February, but waited until there wasn't any heated drama over the storm. However, all of the comments still apply. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to begin with, the article appears to be verifiable. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I guess I could just about live with that... JonRichfield (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But should there be an article on every named storm, in addition to every named storm being included in season articles? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There should be an article on every named storm, for the same reason that we as a community have decided that there should be an article on every village in Iran. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't an accompanying article lumping the villages together. The season articles exist and already go into detail on every storm. The analogy here would be having an article for every game in an NFL season, as well as one for the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the paragraph in WP:NGEO where it says "unless another article lumps them together". Could you tell me where you found that exception? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a fair analogy. There are hundreds of NFL games a year, there are only 15 EPAC cyclone as year. With that said, I am not sure if his idea is the best, but I do agree that every land impacting tropical cyclone should get an article assuming there is enough info. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there are hundreds of named storms each year. If one says "all named storms should have articles", then that would include the thousands of named storms dating back to the 1960s, including hundreds that don't have more than one sentence worth of info in the Indian Ocean. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, how would you define "land impacting"? Does that include a storm affecting the smallest piece of land in the ocean, even if it wasn't inhabited? We have season articles for a reason, so that the storm can be split out when they get too long. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have been thousands of NFL games since the NFL-AFL merger, and likely a few thousand more from 1920-1959, so as a whole there have been more NFL games than named TC's. "hundreds that don't have more than one sentence worth of info in the Indian Ocean" is why I don't necessarily agree what GM said. I define "land impact" to storms that affect inhibited land areas. "We have season articles for a reason, so that the storm can be split out when they get too long." I mostly agree with this, actually, we should base articles for marginally notable storms on content YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with YE here on the season articles "policy," if you will. Marginally notable storms should be based on content and not length, or notability. (hence "marginally notable") The best articles on Wikipedia are not necessarily the longest, or most noble. If it fits it ships for a low flat rate. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, so not all that many more. It was an example of a way to compare the storm seasons with something else. What do you define as land? Would an isolated island in the middle of nowhere with no population or buildings count? As I said, we shouldn't have arbitrary restrictions like that. Erick should exist somewhere on Wikipedia, but not as its own article since it did nothing and there is no more content than what's in the season article. Simply being well-written doesn't mean it should remain an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An isolated island in the middle of nowhere with no population does not count IMO as land. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is so much weight on affecting landmasses, why can't we say, that it affects 1) people and 2) structures. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that every storm that does deaths/damage should get an article if there is enough info, along with storms that have long MH's (as they could easily be handled as it's own article) and/or high intensities or if it breaks a non-trivia record. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think every village should get an article, as defined in WP:NGEO, or only significant villages? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<--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)[reply]

With that said, several established articles apparently have enough content to keep their own articles. The question is is that Erick has enough content to stand as a separate article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with the context that everything can fit in the section of the season article (quite unlike a village in Iran, which could not be merged anywhere as easily). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning that Erick word count is similar to other EPAC articles, including some that affected land and are GA's. Right now, I am still in favor of keeping this article, sorry. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologize for, I knew your position years ago. But unlike the others, Erick did nothing. And, I'm sure the others could be merged just as easily. That's the beauty of season articles. It allows for a section for each storm, and when the section gets too long, then it can be split off as a sub-article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, just trying to seem polite. I still feel there is enough content for its own article even though Erick did pretty much nothing. IMO, merging as a whole, should be done when the article is a handful of sentences long and poorly-written (and there is little room for expansion). Also, does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Right now, it is fairly split. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality shouldn't have anything to do with merging. I think I asked before, but I'll ask again, what is in the section in the season article that isn't in the sub-article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a small factor, since a low-quality articles generally does not have much content. In all, I believe it is generally not a could practice to merge a lot of high-quality articles that are respectable in length. Anyway, let's focus on the storm, not the article. As I said earlier, there is about 100 more words or so in this article than the season section. This article as a whole is more comprehensive than the season section. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's a low-quality article on an important storm (like Typhoon Durian), it certainly shouldn't be merged. And I'm not talking in raw word count, I'm asking what meteorological details are missing from the section in the storm article that isn't in the storm article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% on the first part, I was referring more towards fishspinners above. In all, the storm article goes more in depth about Erick than the season section (hence why there is a storm article). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct amount of information in an article is the amount that an interested user (uninterested users don't count; WP has a special facility for them; it is called reading only what you please) would like to get out of it; it has absolutely nothing to do with how much there might be in another article. The material in the Erik article deals with Erik and related considerations. That is ample justification, no matter how little info appeared in climate or any other mate. JonRichfield (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if there is no additional information in Erick's article than what is in the season section, then should there really be that redundancy? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree that this storm is not notable enough for its own article. But, since it is in FA-class I would be in favor of keeping this article. United States Man (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break so I can find it easily[edit]

As a said earlier, the storm article goes more in depth about Erick than the season section (hence why there is a storm article). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I asked earlier, what actual content is missing from the sub-article that isn't in the section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yellow Evan. This article is in FA-class and should not be merged. United States Man (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA's have been merged and deleted before, and it's even been done in this project. That is not a valid argument. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is exactly what is missing "where it later spawned a small low pressure area. Wind shear prevented tropical cyclone development for a few days, leaving the area of convection, or thunderstorms, separated from the low. The convection began to form closer to the center of the storm." "The convection remained concentrated on the western edge of the storm" "Due to higher Dvorak intensity estimates, the NHC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Erick at 0000 UTC on August 1.[4] Upon its upgrade, Erick attained peak winds of 40 mph (65 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 1004 mbar (hPa; 29.66 inHg).[2]" "The wind shear did not relent, and Erick maintained a disorganized structure with a lack of banding features. As a result, the exact position of the center was difficult to locate." "A weak low reformed along the wave, although it did not reorganize into a tropical cyclone as it entered the North Central Pacific.[2] "although they caused no effects on the islands.[8] The low dissipated fully on August 8. According to the storm's Tropical Cyclone Report, the National Hurricane Center considered that it had poorly forecast Erick's evolution. In particular, the storm formed without significant warning, and dissipated similarly.[2]" I also find the length of the season section length inappropriate. I don't want to sound like a jerk here and no offense to do user and I am hope I am wrong, but after I check the page history, it was re-written on February 15, by someone who wants it gone. While he did expand other sections as well, I suspect that there is an outside chance that WP:POINT was broken here, as the user could want to make an excuse to merge this article. And on USM's argument, it is valid. I have suggested several times that we leave high-quality articles alone, but I get the same reply every time about stop being dramatic And here is the high-quality article logic, to quote myself "Since high-quality articles help and maintain wikipedia, we could ignore all rules.". With that said, I have been ignoring that argument for the RFC, since it leads to drama. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The season sections says that it spawned the small LPA, wind shear preventing development, convection consolidating, and the peak winds. The bit about remnants entering the CPAC is pretty trivial, ditto "no effects on the islands" (we don't say when things don't happen). As for the season article, Erick's section is about the same as other tropical storms in the season, so it's not really WP:POINT of it's not undue. And I wouldn't exactly call a two paragraph article high-quality. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erick's section is longer than Ivo and Juliette's. It does say "it spawned the small LPA, wind shear preventing development, convection consolidating, and the peak winds.", but in less detail. the CPHC'a OR part is hardly trivia, along with "no effects on the islands" (readers may be curious). Would you consider Erick's article comprehensive?. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sections are referenced either, so I'd guess they are incomplete. As for CPHC, it's the remnants, not the storm itself, so it doesn't count as far as statistics go. Would you consider Erick's section in the season article comprehensive? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but slightly overboard, given that there is a storm article. I would condense it, but I don't want to be suspected of WP:POINT. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the point of the RFC lies right there. The section is comprehensive, in your own words, so it isn't lacking any major content. As the storm is just a sub-section of the season article, what is the point of the storm even having an article in the first place? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hink - I just don't think that the best articles on wikipedia should be deleted. We should be more worried about getting more articles to FA-class instead of deleting the ones that already are. United States Man (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, it's been done before. Recently, Justin Bieber on Twitter, a good article, was put up for FAC, but a few days later it was deleted. We can't solely be focused on getting every article featured. We have to keep perspective on how articles and topics should be presented. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC bot apparently came and "expired" the RFC tag. I don't know what that means... --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I fixed the tag since there was no consensus reached. RFC should be open for another 30 days. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Within no comment here thus far this month, and the RFC is about to close, does anyone here have any thoughts on this? If not, what should the outcome be? It's seems like this RFC is taking us nowhere, though Hink seems the only one arguing on the merging side of this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your argument about Dennis 93 is more or less WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an article can always be created. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Least notable tropical cyclone within the East Pacific Basin? Well that's certainly notable! (...runs and hides while everyone throws rotten tomatoes...) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is after all the 4th, right? We'll cut you some slack (How much slack does it take to hang a guy? ;-) ) JonRichfield (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion focused, and on topic

• Does notability mean a topic is inherently article-worthy, or merely inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia?
  • I think this is one of the key points of the RFC, hence why I am starting an open-ended discussion in this section. I do agree that information on Erick should exist on Wikipedia, since its information is verifiable and was not made up. However, given the lack of a variety of sources (most of them stemming from the National Hurricane Center), I don't think it's notable enough on its own. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is notable, it is article worthy IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You missed a significant portion of my argument. Notable information can exist but not be article worthy. We don't have an article on Birth date of George Washington, but that piece of information is surely relevant in George Washington's article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see what you mean now. Some sort of information on tropical cyclone's is notable for some inclusion on Wikipedia, when it grows long it is split into a storm article or when the subject matter meets WP:N. Birth date of George Washington does not meet WP:N as I could only see brief mentions in articles (less info than Erick IMO) or more than a few sentences of info (Erick has more info IMO). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • But Erick's section hadn't grown too long. The section wasn't developed before the article was made. And the birth date was just an example. It's verifiable, and you are more likely to see that in various articles and sources than Erick, which was just a sub-component of the 2007 season. Can't something that's notable exist on Wikipedia but have its own article due to length? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ill put it this way. If a marginally notable subject has enough content to exist as an independent article, go for giving it an article. The question is, does Erick have enough content for its own article? It is certainly marginally notable at best, but I feel there is just enough content for a separate article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's ignoring the question. Can't something that's notable exist on Wikipedia but not have an article? And on what basis do you feel Erick is notable on its own? It only has any sources in relation to the broader season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • In cases where a subject matter is worthy of less than 2-3 paragraphs of info, yes. Erick does have some sources that is not exactly in relation to the broader season, see refs 3-7 and 9, they focus on the storm much more than the season IMO. A big key in keeping this articles is ref 9. along with this as they are useful non-NHC refs. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How is that a big key? It says Erick did nothing. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Correct me if I am wrong, but it says nowhere in WP:GNG that an event must do something in the independent sources. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The only place for a system like Erick should be the Season article imo, as it is just a fishspinner TC that did not do anything bar point some heat to the US Mainland.Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Comment Notability versus non-notability is a fairly clear concept, but the twilight zone is not only broad, but context-sensitive. There is a lot more to the matter than how many people have seen or heard of poor ikkle Erick. The ultimate value of the article is also a factor, and Erick as an example of a minor storm earns his place even if his only notability is analogous to that of the "smallest uninteresting number". Personally I would not have documented him (I think) but he has been documented, well documented, including several points of interest, and without WP tumbling down about our ears or grinding to a halt for lack of storage. I checked on articles linking to him, and once one has stripped out the debating exchanges and a few other categories, something like two dozen links remain. That may not be impressive, but it is not negligible either, especially as an illustration of small articles in support of lists and larger articles. My feeling is that this RFC is of lower importance than Erick and consumes more of our energy and goodwill. Leave him alone till some descendant of ours, once the rest of WP is so perfect that editors are desperately scratching round for blemishes, makes either a cogent case for deletion, or for expansion. It takes a persuasive reason to justify the publication of an article, but once it is published, it takes an even more persuasive reason to justify deletion. Non-notability is one such, but argument about non-notability is not. I shall not be monitoring the scene to see whether Erick gets the chop, but I do argue that he should be left in place for now. JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Let it stay*Someone spent the time to write it and nothing is keeping it from becoming part of a larger article discussing tropical storms of the 2000's at some point in the future.JSR (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I believe that the article should be merged. As for the FAR, my reason for supporting it would be the lack of information or anything special about the Storm itself. FA are the best articles of Wikipedia, and this article being FA sort of promotes having stub articles with little or no significance to anything. Personally i feel the best thing to do is to go for a merge. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask how it promotes stubs? The article is comprehensive, not a stub. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is comprehensive in itself, but its sheer length makes it unsuitable to be a good model for other articles. There may be many articles wanting to be featured with a lot less information than should be. (Just my opinion) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, thousands of articles on WP are short, and in there is no size limit in FA criteria. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But how many of them could be merged as easily as Erick? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • About a hundred of them. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you name one non-hurricane example of an FA that could be merged as easily as Erick? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nevada State Route 146 or 1948–49 Boston Celtics season can IMO be merged as easily as Erick. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither are featured. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh, you were asking for featured stuff. Well, your best bet is North Road (football ground) or Nico Ditch, though both of these articles are slightly longer than Erick. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yea, and neither could be merged as easily as Erick. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a member of WPTC, I was originally not going to comment here, but TheOriginalSoni brought up an issue that I think must be addressed. When he mentioned that "FA are the best articles of Wikipedia, and this article being FA sort of promotes having stub articles with little or no significance to anything", he (she?) essentially stated that featured articles must be "exceptional" in order to be considered "Wikipedia's best work". The underlying philosophy essentially implies that only a limited number of articles can ever be FAs, as articles that are of high technical quality but that are bound by being of a limited subject matter cannot be exceptional even if they are comprehensive. A jocular way of looking at this view is that only the top 1% (or whatever number you pick) of articles should be called FAs.
  However, this is not the only point of view that exists about FACs. An opposing philosophy is that featured article status should be conferred to any article that meets the criteria set forth by WP:WIAFA. This viewpoint sees FA as a quality certification, not as a status of uniqueness. Historically, this method of viewing featured articles is reflected in the goals of WP:100K and the placement of ((FA-Class)) at the top of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team assessment scale.
  TheOriginalSoni's comment that Erick being a FA promotes stub articles takes entirely different meanings based on the FA philosophy that people use. For people who believe FA should be a mark of an article belonging to an exclusive club, Erick's bronze star encourages the proliferation of articles that cannot be considered exceptional; when this philosophy is taken to the extreme, Erick's FA status sullies the value of other FAs. For people who adhere to the second philosophy—myself included—Erick being an FA simply says that the article has been written to a professional standard, and is comprehensive, in spite of its brevity. More importantly, it says that Erick serves as an example for how other short articles should look like.
  Commenting back to the notability portion of this whole argument, my views are in complete agreement to JonRichfield's comments. The amount of effort and bile wasted on getting this article deleted simply serves to irritate a thinning user base. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - it did not cause deaths, it did not do damage, so it really isn't, IMO, worth having its own article. Encyclopedia articles exist to be read, and if there is so little to be said that it can be merged, it aught to be simply because otherwise the chances of it being read are minimal. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joke, right? This recalls the classic Albert and the lion:

They didn't think much to the Ocean

The waves, they were fiddlin' and small

There was no wrecks and nobody drownded

Fact, nothing to laugh at, at all.

All very well for Marriott Edgar, but for WP? I should hope we have more substantial criteria, not only for WP, but for our personal standards of interest. I am reminded of the dumbed down actuality and (Heaven help us) popular science programmes on TV. I reckon that if an article has nothing to say, don't say anything, but if it has anything to say (which Eric's article did, even if it did not say that a lot of folk got killed) then it should be said, as plainly and usefully as possible. The fact that someone found it boring need not mean that no one would be looking for such info. JonRichfield (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth though, there is no additional content in Erick's article that isn't in its section in the 2007 Pacific hurricane season article. That's the reason there's a debate over the merger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, the season section has 250 words, Erick's MH alone is 395 words. There is apparently enough content to keep this article IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mere word count has nothing to do whether an article should remain a featured article or not. I was just pointing out the redundant content, and how no content is missing. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and it is not so badly written that anyone can argue that it is inflated. The whole thing sounds to me like a POV attack. Hope I am wrong... JonRichfield (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct it does not, if you were to be technical about 100 words are missing. With that said, I do not think this was a POV attack. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But those 100 words are largely padding. Is anything of substance missing? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, one thing that bothers me about this exchange is that we have got beyond counting angels on a pin; we are now quibbling about which pin, which end of the pin, and the like, and losing track of the angels. Now, as I said before, I don't think this is a big deal; the article does not reflect badly on WP; it is well written and substantial. That is more than you can say for a large minority of WP articles. The article could be of value for people into climatology and it needdn't bother anyone who is not. One needs very little sound justification to earn a place for an article -- what doesn't interest one reviewer might interest another, but ipso facto it takes a lot of justification to remove an article. "Nobody drownded" is not sufficient justification for deletion or merging; if it were we would have about a million vacuous articles on nameless, faceless, boring celebs to expunge (pardon my sobs!) For every justification that anyone has come up with for merging or removal, there has been a contrary view. This does not mean that one or the other is wronger than right, but it does mean that some people want to see the article, which they can't if we remove it, or can't readily search if we merge it, whereas those who aren't interested can happily ignore it; it doesn't run after them, importuning for attention. Lack of personal interest is no argument for merging; that takes context, continuity and structure of topic, and we have none of those here. What we do have is justification for giving the whole matter a rest. (A looong rest...) JonRichfield (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think this conversation is worth having, feel free to unwatch it and do other things with your time. I think it highlights an important policy issue and is well worth discussing.

BTW, see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin for some insight on your "counting angels on a pin" question. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy, I knew it was a pseudo-argument, but did not know its origins. As for the argument, I wasn't bitching about the substance, but about the persistent circularity. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]