Talk:Tropical Storm Nana (2008)

Todo
Needs to be expanded with discussions (see the advisory archive) and wikilinks to technical terms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article relies on only one source&mdash;I suggest withdrawing the good article nomination for now. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 22:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What he's saying is that you need to include information from some of the tropical cyclone discussions to help fill out the article. That tag is going to doom GA if it's not taken care of.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the length of this article a detriment to GA?
I read once somewhere on wikipedia that the GA process was set up to deal with articles not long enough to go through FAC. Yet, over the years I've been on here, people occasionally cite the shortness of an article as unworthy of GA. Which opinion is right? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although trivial, it bears questioning
I've been a music afficionado for a few years, and I have to point out. Donna Summers did not originally record "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye". Steam did (although the band that recorded the song didn't actually exist. See the main page on the band for more info). Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability
I can see this is a well written article, but surely it is struggling more than just a bit on the notability front. A list of references from essentially the same source followed by a NOAA ref saying that other names have been taken off the list but these don't include Nana because it wasn't notable enough. I know wikipedia is a very inclusive medium but the spirit of the notability criteria surely is that people have to actually care about it in some way. I would think that this caring must go beyond making a list of storms for completeness. Polargeo (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability criterion simply require coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Whether or not people care about it is essentially irrelevant. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the project had a long discussion, and it is still ongoing, whether all storms are notable enough for an article. I happen to believe that this storm, and others like it that didn't affect land, are not notable enough, in that there are not significant, secondary reliable sources, since they all come from the same location, but the above user disagrees. However, any notability discussion often results in one or more users leaving the project, so basically we have no idea whether it is notable enough or not. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay fair enough a couple of refs added. However, I do agree strongly with Hurricanehink. A tropical storm that survived for 2 days, never made land and never increased to hurricane status is not notable and the guidelines Notability do not say that the existance of secondary sources automatically make the article notable. I think if you check some of the wikipedia guidelines multiple citations of essentially the same thing to try to make an article look notable is frowned upon, see Bombardment. One could argue that the weather forecast of the 28th March 2001,29th March 2002 etc. are all far more notable as articles than Tropical Storm Nana, I'm sure much more could be dredged up on the particular Atlanic low that day and how all the fishing boats stayed in port. Please have the debate or else where do we stop? Also nomination of this type of article as GA is a real waste of editors' time. If any research student wanted information on the weather on any particluar day, including tropical storms, they would go to NOAA (or similar). Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that settles it then this article is not notable. Most sources here are not independent of the subject. The ones that are independent are brief mentions in the news from one 24-48 hour period and this is well covered on what wikipedia is not. It is Not the news. Also news is repeated in many outlets, see the bombardment point above. As I said earlier the news covers the daily weather forecast, traffic hold ups etc. Therefore not notable. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Secondary" means outside of the subject itself. The NHC did not create the storm. Would you say The Weather Channel is affiliated with every snowstorm and thunderstorm in the U.S.? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you follow my argument above you will realize that the weather channel reporting it is just another news outlet, but especially reporting weather news, so even less significant. Do we add an article on the fact it rained a bit last Thursday? Wikipedia is not the news. This article fails to have sources outside of the organisations that are involved in the subject that are not momentary minor news items reporting the weather from the day or two Nana existed (in fact it could be even argued that these are not outside the subject as they are weather reports, so what do you expect them to say?). I bet if this went to a general wikipedia editor vote it would fail on notability. But why we should waste time on it I don't know. Polargeo (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go by a historical perspective, Nana is actually fairly notable, being the fourteenth named storm, it marks an above average season (an average having 10 named storms with a leeway of three). The letter N is generally not reached within the Atlantic basin that often. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)But that makes the season notable, not the storm. From a historical perspective, Nana was a short-lived tropical storm in October that didn't affect land. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like a far greater waste of time to continue beating the dead horse, in my honest opinion. That said, tropical cyclones are not equal to rain showers. There are hundreds of thousands of rain showers every year, whereas there are but a handful of designated tropical cyclones. While that doesn't in itself make tropical cyclones inherently notable, it proves that they are relatively rare and noteworthy events. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it strikes me that this is two editors disagreeing with two other editors. So more really a dead heat than a dead horse. But you obviously would like to bury it. I am off now but am willing to put some more input later. Polargeo (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been endless discussions on the matter, and we've yet to come to a consensus, so there's really no point in arguing about this individual article. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When there are these typical questionable articles, we always take it to another round on the project discussion page. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been away for a couple a days. My wikipedia thing is generally ice so I don't want to get into driving a big discussion in the tropical cyclone project. I have had enough difficulty convincing people not to litter wikipedia with articles on individual rocks in Antarctica. If you have a discussion then please give me a call as I have a lot to say on the sources. Happy editing Polargeo (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come back in on this one but I've just had a look at the sources which you added. I know you do a lot of good editing work but I think this has gone a bit too enthusiastic. The sources say it is the fourteenth storm of THE SEASON not the fourteenth named storm. The NOAA source doesn't even mention Nana. So apart from the unnecessarily long list of Hurricane Center references there are the 4 media references all from 12th and 13th October and these are very very minor mentions indeed. This badly fails the Wikipedia criteria that articles should be assesed on. I was surprised and a little annoyed that the article was assessed and rated GA after I began the discussion, with no attempt to reach any consensus first. I suggest that this article is here only because some people have decided that a Tropical Storm is automatically noteworthy and that would mean adding thousands of very minor/common weather events, this is not really following wikipedia criteria at all and I think this should go to a wider consensus. I will mention this in the project now as a first step to possibly requesting a reassesment of GA status. Polargeo
 * But Polargeo, this passes WP:N an all tropical cyclones (post-2000) are notable since there are guaranteed sources. The NHC did not create this storm and thus it is its own source. Also, We even have a fishspinner FA. Tropical Storm Erick (2007) was sent to FAR at did not get delisted Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home, User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
 * If you feel this fails notability requirements, feel free to file a request at WP:AFD. As I said, arguing over this particular article is pointless at the moment. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I concede that arguing this particular article alone is a waste of time but I still think it needs addressing. I strongly disagree that this meets notability criteria. It dosen't matter that NHC is regarded a secondary source. All sources, NHC and news media now become simply reports of a fleeting 2 day common weather event that had no recorded impact on anyone. All sources are from the 2 days this storm existed so no temporal impact outside of wikipedia at all. This is covered in debates about Wikipedia not being the news. It should also not be a list of stuff that has happened, or gazeteer. The tropical storm is now only notable above other similar articles which would be deleted because it has been decided that a tropical storm is inherently notable. This is not based on normal wikipedia arguments. Polargeo (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that all storms are inherently notable, but if a high-quality article (which this is in my opinion) can be written, I'm against merging/deleting it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That is the best argument I have heard. I think I'll leave this for now to tropical cyclone people to debate. By the way may name is Julian. Polargeo (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge?
Regardless whether or not the storm is in any way notable or not, there really isn't a lot of content here. It's just an expansive meteorological history. Really, how is it important that a discussion mentioned "Na na hey hey goodbye"? --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this being merged, just put that line into the season article please :) I like having that little tidbit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Going, going, gone. So many storm articles can be deleted in this manner.  This might (crossing fingers) allow people to improve the articles which involve a tropical cyclone landfall.  We can only hope....  Thegreatdr (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)