Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Article notability guidelines

Some terms that need to be further defined

What is impact, and how much of it is notable? How much is significant media attention?

Sources

I think part of it should respect existing Wikipedia policy. Namely, if a storm doesn't have significant independent sources about a storm other than the warning agency, then how is a storm notable? Another way of looking at it. If an agency doesn't issue warnings on a storm, then is the storm any less notable? If yes, I don't believe the storm should have an article, as what an agency says should have no bearing on how important a storm is. For example, that would effect all fish storms, as well as storms that threaten land but don't cause impact (since if a storm wasn't named, then there wouldn't be TS/H watches/warnings).

Thoughts? --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My proposal

I think this is a compromise. I want articles for every storm (every Simpsons episode has one), but you want the above. I noticed that you put in criteria that goes against Darby. i am goign wit the old criteria.

"* It is a named storm and makes landfall

• • Since 2005, this has basically been de facto policy
• It is a named storm that doesn't make landfall, but has significant impacts on inhabited land (basically Mexico and the US)
  • This covers things such as impact due to heavy rain or strong waves, and Hawaii landfalls are rare
• It is retired due to impact
  • The previous two would basically also cover any retired storm, but in case they don't, I included this one
  • Maintaining Wikipedia:Featured topics/Retired Pacific hurricanes requires these storms to have good or featured articles.
• It crosses into the Atlantic or vice versa as a with its circulation, not as remnants
  • If we are going to have an article on every Atlantic storm, this basically follows from that
  • The exclusion of remnants is intended to make it clear that this suggestion does not mean it's necessary to have an article on, say, 2001's Manuel
  • If it is a depression on both sides is a bit of an iffy area

Pacific hurricanes may be notable if they meet the following criteria. The more criteria they meet, the more article-worthy they are likely to be:

• It reaches Category 5 intensity
  • Maintaining Wikipedia:Featured topics/Category 5 Pacific hurricanes requires this to have a good or featured article, but losing that topic is not the end of the world
• It (nearly) sets some sort of record
  • Examples: intensity (in a month or all time), duration, distance, etc
• It does something unusual
  • Examples: forms out of season, travels from the CPac to EPac, goes from EPac to WPac, is the northernmost/southernmost/easternmost/westernmost? formation/example of its type, etc.

Pacific hurricanes that do not meet the above criteria probably aren't article-worthy. However, if Wikipedia is better for having an article on such a storm, go ahead!"

This could apply to the ATL as well. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because every Simpsons episode has an article doesn't mean every named storm should. After all, every Pokemon used to have an article, but that's no longer the case. I disagree that every landfalling named storm should be guaranteed an article. If the storm did practically nothing, then it should not have an article; see my comments on Darby's talk page for what constitutes practically nothing. Granted, Darby did not make landfall, but its impact is practically nothing. We should be careful with the criteria "does something unusual", since anything noteworthy would fall under some form of record. In addition, I don't think because a storm caused some trivial record that it should be guaranteed an article, in the Atlantic or EPAC. --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but my proposal is a compromise, I want articles for every storm, but you do not want records. I do not think we should focus less on notability, instead of fighting over weather Hurricane X deserves an article, you could get Hurricane N to FA. I think this part of Wikipedia is overrated. I also think we are two strict. Do not give me that we got to be strict crap. WP:NBA had been successful even though they have less strict policy's. Although I do not love watching NBA basketball, I like hanging out there because people are nice there. We should also start using the A class review and the article request page. No offense, but I have a sandbox that I have been embarrassed to show people due to the way the project is set up. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)