Talk:1842 Spain hurricane

Really?
There are only four people who believe that this "hurricane" ever existed. They are basing their paper on 150+ year old barometric readings and a couple people saying "it was slightly warm". If you read through the paper (which I did when I was writing Hurricane Vince (2005)) their data does not support the concrete conclusion that there was a hurricane in Spain in 1842. All it suggests is that there was some heavy weather, not unlike the thousands of non-tropical storms since. The fact that there is only one secondary source should have thrown up a huge red flag. Unless someone significantly expands this article and establishes its notability, I am going to nominate this article for deletion.  Plasticup  T / C  15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we're not certain it was a hurricane, what about renaming to 1842 Spain storm? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weren't there probably a lot of storms in Spain in 1842?  Plasticup  T / C  15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'd have two options. We could expand it, using that paper, although like you said there's the possibility it was not a tropical cyclone. Or, we could merge it with the season article. I'd prefer not to do deletion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking that we could have one article to encompass all "historically discovered" tropical cyclones. Apparently there are several others: Philippines, 1566-1900 (pdf), A 1,000-Year History of Typhoon Landfalls in Guangdong, Southern China, and I'm sure there are more. It could talk about the techniques used, the specific hurricanes "discovered", and the applications of the new data to the calculation of "median season activity".  Plasticup  T / C  16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, Wikipedia does not publish original thought. It doesn't matter whether you consider the existence of this hurricane dubious or not. This article is based on a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal. Unless you find another article contradicting Vaquero et al., you better leave this Wikipedia article as it is. ––Bender235 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One source does not satisfy the notability criteria.  Plasticup  T / C  16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there are more than one source. Links such as this, this, this and this certainly verify the storm's existence, and notability to some extent. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One source does not satisfy the notability criteria.
 * You're wrong. It certainly does satisfy it. Just like the Battle of Idomene, MacArthur's Mouse Lemur, or HD 168746. ––Bender235 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be safer to call this 1842 Spain cyclone since, from what I can tell, no weather service had classified the storm as a hurricane? This article might fit better under WikiProject Meteorology with a format like this 2006 Central Pacific cyclone. Could it have been another cyclonic event?Potapych (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This storm had hurricane strength, so it's safe to call it "hurricane". Just like the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, or dozens of others. ––Bender235 (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that it might not have been tropical. Also, it might not have been hurricane strength. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Vaquero et al. it did have hurricane strength. ––Bender235 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A hurricane is a regional name for a tropical cyclone. That's why I think this would fit better under WikiProject Meteorology with a different name and template. You could email the NHC and ask their thoughts on this system, and use that for the article. They are very interested in keeping records of all tropical activity in the Atlantic.Potapych (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A hurricane is still named "hurricane" if it goes all the way up to New England. Why is it not named hurricane if it hits Spain? If this storm right here shouldn't be named hurricane (based on what scientific source, BTW), then Hurricane Vince shouldn't be either. ––Bender235 (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, we know for certain that Vince was tropical. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  12:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless it meets this definition - A warm-core, non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters, with organized deep convection and closed surface wind circulation about a well defined centre cyclone in which maximum average surface wind (one-minute mean) is 118 km/h (74 mph) (64 knots) or greater - it is not a hurricane. Does the paper verify all of these facts to make it a hurricane? Has an authoritative source (such as the NHC) weighed in on how they would classify the storm? If the first two answers are "no" then people should be looking for ways to present it in a less-NPOV.Potapych (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vaquero et al. unambiguously conclude: Our results strongly suggest that a hurricane formed in the eastern Atlantic Ocean and moved east-northeast to the southwest coast of Spain in late October 1842. End of discussion. ––Bender235 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I merged the article again, partly per Potapych. The paper says the results suggest, but it can not definitely confirm it, and nor has it appeared more widely in tropical cyclone literature. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean this article can't be expanded within the next months, or years. --bender235 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)