Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Ethel (1960)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Ethel (1960)
Delete Non-notable hurricane causing no documented deaths or damages. It's gets just under 2000 Google hits almost all of which are from meteorological sites. The only thing even remotely notable about it is the fact that it's one of only 25 Atlantic Hurricanes to reach Category 5, and that doesn't warrant an article. Soltak 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. One of just 25 in 150 years sounds notable to me. Pilatus 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Comment This article was 2 minutes old when Soltak tagged it for deletion. The anonymous editor (beware the urge to denigrate anonymity) who created this article made a number of contributions in the field of hurricanes in a short period of time. Let's give this article a chance to develop in the normal course of things. --Mddake 00:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as appropriate with hurricane JDoorjam 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Category 5 hurricanes are unique events that are notable enough for entry.Gateman1997 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, hurricanes are plenty notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:03, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
 * Comment I would remind everyone that this hurricane resulted in no documented deaths or damages. It's no more notable than a bad rain storm. If the delete vote fails I plan to redirect the article to List of notable tropical cyclones where Ethel is mentioned. Soltak 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We're all very aware of this.Gateman1997 21:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Then might I inquire as to why you wish to keep the article? Soltak 21:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that I should have to explain further then I already did, but the fact that it's a Category 5 hurricane deems it pretty worthy of an article in my book. There have only been 25 in the last 100 years. It's not like this is some obsure Tropical Depression. Gateman1997 22:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Kappa 22:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gateman1997's rationale. Plus IMO any named hurricane is notable enough for article, even a stub for a non-damaging event. 23skidoo 23:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any Category 5 hurricane should get its own article, damage or not. It simply doesn't happen all that often. Mike H (Talking is hot) 23:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Ten minutes of actually reading some of the 62,000+ Google hits results in learning that Ethel ('60) was the only hurricane to make originall landfall in the region between MS and the FL panhandle, that it is unusual for hurricanes to form in the Gulf of Mexico, that there were only 2 Cat 5 storms that year, and that the name Ethel was not retired as a result of this storm. All of this seems notable enough to mention. The fact that WP is not paper means that we can be expansive on what articles appear, provided that smaller articles are well-linked to more substantive articles that will round out the topic for the casual reader (who is the only person using this resource).  --Mddake 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable hurricane. Capitalistroadster 02:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. All Category 5 hurricanes. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:35, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.