Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Danielle (2004) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. The coverage must be considered coming from independent sources, and so the consensus seems to be that the article does not fail WP:GNG for that reason. There is clearly no consensus to delete but several editors suggest a merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Before such a merger is carried out is should be discussed at that talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Danielle (2004)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No damages, no fatalities, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Merge with 2004 AHS. 14 years have passed since the previous AFD, and notability guidelines have since become stricter. --'' Java Hurricane  08:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - we do not set our own notability policy in regards to how many people have to die or how many properties have to be destroyed for an incident to merit a standalone article. If that was the case many articles would not exist or we would be having any article based on our own biased personal taste. We use our notability guidelines to determine whether an article deserves a standalone article. The incident received wide coverage from plenty of reliable secondary sources, and notability is not temporary. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Care to elaborate how it fails WP:N? I have my own thoughts on this matter (though quite frankly AFD isn't the appropriate place for this unless things have changed radically since I paid serious attention) but I want to have this discussion first. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this caused no damage anywhere and was not meteorologically important either. Since Wikipedia is not Hurricane Wiki, Danielle should not have an article as it is not notable enough. --'' Java Hurricane  03:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also checked for sources on Google, but no news outlets or reporters had information for the storm. I only found some scientific sites discussing imagery and some Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki pages. Clearly we don't have enough secondary sources for this storm. --'' Java Hurricane  04:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "no damage" and "not meteorologically important" is not a valid reason for removal (and I'd argue the reverse is true) for reasons I can elaborate on. As for the issue of secondary sources, it's somewhat of a trap. There are plenty of secondary sources available just because most hurricanes in this part of the world starting in the 90s got some coverage while the storm was active, so technically you are incorrect. I should also note that I'd argue it is false to say "notability guidelines have become stricter" as someone who has been editing for 12 years and has a good idea what Wikipedia was like in the couple years before that. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't discount the fact that the article is based on 10 sources, all of which are from the NHC. --'' Java Hurricane  04:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that all 10 sources come from the NHC is a somewhat arbitrary decision. If a few news sources were introduces in replace of some of the info that the NHC also provided, it'd by a very literal definition make this article pass WP:N instead of not passing it otherwise. In reality I don't think what types of sources are included makes a difference here when said sources provide the same information, so I'd argue evaluate the subject. Of course, that makes basically every tropical cyclone eligible for an article, which for reaosns I'll explain later on is a mistake, and is also why I think WP:N in this project is often a trap. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only problem being that no news/independent sources could be found for this page. --'' Java Hurricane  06:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe Google Algorithms have gotten worse over the last few years but I've been doing this long enough to know that's false as with the case of any modern day tropical cyclone. YE Pacific Hurricane 08:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "no independent sources" is not valid as a complaint here. The hurricane itself is not a commercial entity benefiting from promotional coverage in Wikipedia.  The NHC, whatever that is, is entirely separate from the hurricane itself. --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sorry, nom. I've overlooked the WP:MUSTBEDEATHSTOBENOTABLE guideline.  The Encyclopedia of Hurricanes has significant coverage. Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season - There's no evidence of WP:LASTING notability (and, by the way, LASTING literally gives non-destructive storms as their example of not having lasting notability: "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable."


 * Saying "notability is not temporary" confuses the issue. Even if there is "coverage from reliable secondary sources," if those sources never indicated the event was likely to have lasting effects, the event never established lasting notability in the first place. Coverage in secondary sources of a storm that sat in the ocean and did nothing, does not establish lasting notability. Temporary attention doesn't create notability, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes. I would expect a literal hurricane encyclopedia to have coverage of literally every hurricane in it, and if inclusion in such a thing was the standard for including hurricanes, literally every hurricane ever would automatically be notable here.  That can't be the standard, right? Shelbystripes (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This sort of leads to my actual opinion on this matter in general. Every hurricane deserves some sort of mention on Wikipedia; the question is whether there's enough content for a stand alone article or it is better suited for the respective seasonal page. A matter that at least use to be outside the scope of the AFD. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The question of when a hurricane warrants its own page is one of expected or demonstrated notability. In this case, we already have 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, which is an adequate place to recommend merging content from this page. It's not outside the scope of AfD to recommend merging content from a non-notable topic, into a page on a larger topic where it fits. That’s always been within the scope of the AfD process. And until people stop making separate articles for non-notable weather events, AfD will continue to be for that, I’m sure. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, although there's some possibility it could be merged later. There is no way this should be outright deleted, as the deletion nominator i think knew.  Because obviously merging to the year list-article is superior.  We are obligated to seek alternatives to deletion and here there is this good option.  So it should not have been nominated for deletion.  A merger proposal could be made at the Talk page of the year article, with proper notice at the subject article.  However, sources seem substantial.
 * Not specifically about this deletion proposal, I think the point of AFDs is often to run up a personal score of articles deleted. And I tend to dislike repeated deletion proposals;  the first AFD though a long time ago settled the issue by "Keep" decision well enough. --Doncram (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you do agree with merge as a solution? It sounds like your only objection to merge as a solution isn’t the result but the possibility of it happening via AfD. It would be helpful if you’d say more clearly that you agree “merge” as acceptable an end result, since it is a possible result here. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now more clearly:
 * no I do not agree that merge is necessarily okay. There seems to be misunderstanding and/or different perspectives becoming apparent here.  I tend to think maybe all named hurricanes covered by NHC (which appears to be objective, independent, unreproachable source, part of NASA) are in fact Wikipedia notable.  Also there is apparently coverage of this one in particular.  And the complaint above that the coverage is "not independent" is invalid:  the hurricane is not commercial entity or any other kind of entity benefiting from promotion.  The hurricane itself is not the source of any information.
 * I agree with User:Yellow Evan's comments above that deletion reasons of " "no damage" and "not meteorologically important" is not a valid reason for removal".
 * There is assertion above by Shelbystripes that "Also, Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes. I would expect a literal hurricane encyclopedia to have coverage of literally every hurricane in it, and if inclusion in such a thing was the standard for including hurricanes, literally every hurricane ever would automatically be notable here. That can't be the standard, right?" However, it seems to me that Wikipedia could indeed properly choose to be the definitive source of info on hurricanes.  Wikipedia has famously subsumed many many small encyclopedias.  There is guideline or essay wp:NOTPAPER about how we are not at all limited by size reasons.  I like that Shelbystripes is thinking and reasoning, and that this discussion is all in good faith, but it seems to me that Wikipedia could indeed cover all hurricanes including this one.  This AFD is not the place to come to some new notability standard for hurricanes.  Perhaps a discussion at a Weather wikiproject if there is one is warranted.
 * I do grant that Wikipedia covering all hurricanes does not require having a separate article for each one; coverage of some/many could possibly best be done by redirects to list-article rows. However in this case the article size is much greater than can reasonably be compressed into one row, so it is fine/good that it is separate.  It seems to meet GNG and there is no question whether an encyclopedic article can be written about it, because to me it is clearly a good encyclopedic article.
 * It remains that "Keep" seems to me the best outcome of this AFD, and a merger proposal can be discussed elsewhere (not on basis of GNG which I tend to think is met here, but potentially on basis of editorial choice to use list-article rows instead perhaps, although so far I think in this case that separate is better). And there can be discussion elsewhere of what is current general treatment of hurricanes and/or whether that should be changed.
 * sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. above is correct in two ways: first in reasoning that all officially classified tropical cyclones are notable, and second in recognizing that covering a topic on does not necessarily mean assigning it a standalone page. Relegating inconsequential storms to sections in their respective seasonal articles has been common practice since Wikipedia's early days. This article is built on a foundation of repetition, jargon, and meteorological minutiae, which could reasonably be condensed to one or two paragraphs without compromising the reader's understanding of the storm. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Doncram. See no problems with merging to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season if topic editors believe that's the best approach -- although FWIW, it seems like there's plenty here to support a stand-alone article. Objections to Wikipedia coverage of "minutiae" are problematic; we should always endeavor to be as thorough and precise in our coverage as circumstances permit. -- Visviva (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge as the storm has no notable land impacts or important meteorological records. Additionally, it did only last for a week. If there were reported impacts, I would be inclined to say keep, but there aren't any in this case. Given that the season article isn't incredibly large, I am going to have to say merge on this one. This article could easily be condensed down without the reader losing any vital information. Noah Talk 02:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.