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The result was Nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Pacific typhoon seasons

[edit]

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

The article describes a very limited set of typhoons in a 3-week period in 1853. It is based entirely on a single primary source, of which it appears to be a close-ish paraphrase. It probably doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Stfg (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and mark for expansion. AFAICT, it is accepted within WPTC that tropical cyclones are always notable enough to list (this is a separate issue from whether they are notable enough to have an individual article). Therefore, this should be renamed to some list of typhoons by date, such as list of Pacific typhoon before 1900 or 1850-1859 Pacific typhoon seasons. If other near-contemporary seasons to this one have a comparable amount of information, I'd favour the decadal article. The issues with only covering a 3-week period is really due to undue weight and a lack of research (or perhaps info) regarding the rest of the time. This can be handled with marking it for expansion and adding info on other cyclones. For example, here is a source that could be used to expand a multi-season listing. This is rather similar to the 1977 Pacific hurricane season deletion discussion, where, when the article was created, it only covered the first storm. The problems in this(early typhoon seasons) article can be solved the same way as in the 1977 season article. The close-ish paraphrase can be eliminated by rewriting. Therefore, as I see it, the article needs work, not deletion.
BTW, I'm going to notify WPTC of this discussion (as is requested on the AfD page), both on its page and on IRC. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection to going in the direction suggested by Miss Madeline. It appears from Category:Pacific hurricane seasons that decadal articles exist from 1900 to 1948 and then annual ones from 1949. There is already an article List of Pacific hurricanes before 1900 which has no section for 1853. Why not use this source to create such a section? That would be due weight. If an article is wanted, it seems immaterial whether we rename the present article or create a new one, but I hope that paraphrase isn't going to be allowed to fester as it has up till now (with a notability tag and suggestions to delete sitting ignored on the talk page). This attracts tags like ((copy edit)) and ((wikify)), which make work for people. --Stfg (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there's no section for 1853 in List of Pacific hurricanes before 1900 is because that article is about Pacific hurricanes, which (by definition) are tropical cyclones east of the dateline. The article under discussion here is (nominally) about Pacific typhoons, which (by definition) are west of the dateline. It is conventional to split the East from the West, because tropical cyclones are infrequent in the Central Pacific, and there are also meteorological differences between the two areas, even if these sorts of tropical cyclones are identical phenomena. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agreed. I think this should be kept and expanded and possibly re-titled. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added information and sources on three or four more individual typhoons. There does seem to be a lot more information out there, Spinning Spark 10:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be more than happy to withdraw this nomination if there's a procedure for doing so, if anyone would undertake to edit away those tedious details (like barometer readings to 2 decimal places copied from ships' logs in archaic language). Additions like those provided by Spinningspark make the article worthwhile. I certainly don't want to pursue a nom that obstructs that continuing. --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2012 (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.