Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes


 * 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This might be controversial, but I don't believe this article should not exist for two similar reasons. For some background, the article refers to Atlantic hurricanes that attained Category 4 status on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, which is a 1 to 5 scale that ranks hurricanes by strength. 5 is the top, and is rare; as such, it already has an article, located at List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Category 4 hurricanes are not particularly rare. The article identifies 95 of them since 1851, of which 83 since 1900; that means that in any given year (1900-present), there is a 76% probability of them occurring in any given year. For perspective, NOAA defines an average season as one with 11 tropical storms, with 2 major hurricanes in addition to 4 minor hurricanes, and by comparison, Category 5 hurricanes have a 29% probability of happening in a given year (based on 31 Cat. 5 storms since 1900).

So, the reason I am bringing it here is because I don't believe the article establishes notability. Per the notability page, The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Its notability isn't established, since Category 3 hurricanes and Category 2 hurricanes have similar, but lesser effects. I doubt there has been any research on statistics of Category 4 hurricanes, but regardless, the article largely lists the storms and sources a document that lists every Atlantic cyclone since 1851. To some extent, the article flirts with containing original research, since one has to sift through every other storm to find the Category 4 storms.

My primary reason for wishing to delete the article is because I do not want this to set a precedent. I do not want List of Atlantic tropical storms, as such a list would be pointless. The question is where to draw the line in the sand, and I wish to draw it and limit this sort of article to the very top of the heap. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As an update, the category Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes has been created. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a something which i am only slightly leaning on the support side of things. I feel that if we let this go through then there is argument to have Category 3 lists then Category 2 lists and so on and that just isnt necessary. The Catagory 5 hurricanes are the most notable hurricanes and perhaps these lists should be drawn here. I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere and i believe it should be at Cat 5. I feel that this should exist as a category, eg. Category:Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes and be applied to all other strengths of hurricanes. However i am open to other views which i will consider before i really decide my opinion of the fate of this article. Seddon69 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree, this list is bloaty and arbitrary. Most of its elements do not even have their own articles (nor, probably, should they). This is a list whose purpose can be better served by a category such as Category:Category 4 tropical cyclones. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment First, am I allowed to oppose the deletion? This article is not being deleted because it is not good, it is being deletd because you don't want to see other articles of this sort. Really, this is one article, one more article, in the millions of articles that exist on wikipedia. What does it hurt to keep it? And, this article has knowledge. Knowledge is what wikipedia intends to have the enrite sum of. If we are ever to accumulate enough knowlegde so that people can rely on wikipedia to have articles on everything, we have to keep this article, and other good articles that are being deleted just because we are afraid that we are going to have to many good articles. Any article has potential to get to FA or FL and this article has the potential to do just that. I very much hope we decide to keep List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. Juliancolton (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While touching, that doesn't really address the issue, and citing millions of other articles is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This is a very nice article and provides an excellent summary of the history of many major hurricanes. The argument that the topic isn't notable is applying a different definition of notability than that used by Wikipedia; the nominator argues that it isn't notable because the hurricanes are not especially rare. However, "notability" for Wikipedia means the availability of reference material to write a good article. The topic is clearly notable because there is plenty of reference material; in fact, most of the hurricanes on the list have their own articles. If an article listing tropical storms is a bad idea (I agree), that doesn't constitute a valid reason to delete this article listing major category 4 hurricanes. BRMo (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:N, and I agree with everything BRMo said. Noroton (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment An article of this type MUST include data on category 4 storms that also achieved category 5 status. Doing otherwise skews statistics and borders on original research. — jdorje (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article was doing statistical analysis and drawing inferences, then I'd agree that it would need to include analysis of storms that achieved category 5 status; it would also be original research. However, this article is just presenting a list and some descriptive data. That doesn't constitute original research and is perfectly appropriate as a presentation of the data. BRMo (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take this argument to the talk page. But for the record, the article says "eight Category 4 hurricanes formed within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean" which is flat-out incorrect. — jdorje (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what it says is In the years between 2001 and the present time, eight Category 4 hurricanes formed within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean. That is clearly what it says. I don't know how you could have missed the first half of that sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentI would like to add that the notability of this article needs to be PROVEN with EVIDENCE. If evidence can be shown that category four hurricanes are notable then i would be willing to accept that this article should exist. Whether or not this article is well written should not be used as an argument. Category 5's are at the top of this particular scale and therefore notable and there are articles purely about category 5 hurricanes in general. I need evidence of category four hurricnes themselves being notable on thier own by their own merits. Seddon69 (talk)
 * Strong Keep. Very nice article, clearly encyclopedic topic. Plently of sources available to establish notability. BRMo said it all, really. AndyJones (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Everyone here should keep in mind that the notability of a list is not established by the notability of its elements. Rather, the notability of a list is established by the notability of the list's theme. In this case, the notability of a "List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricains" should be proved or disproved by demonstrating the (non)notability of "Category 4" itself. The nominator seemed to be arguing in the right direction, but I believe the "keep"s to appear misguided. For example, I can probably dredge up a treasure trove of sources for List of Canadian actors to be interviewed on CNN, but that doesn't mean I should make the list, and it doesn't mean it's notable (which by the measure some of you have explicated, it would be). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment once per season doesn't seem particularly excessive. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - per BRMo. The list isn't violating any policies or guidelines as far as I can tell.  It definitely meets notability guidelines.  When is this going back to Featured list candidates?   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The argument I have gotten is that "category 5 is more important and notable than category 4. Therefore, list of category 5 hurricanes is needed more than category 4". This is incorrect. Take a look at List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes. 3 of the deadliest atlantic hurricanes were category 4. Only one was category 5. This means that category 4 is more notable than category 5, dosen't it. Juliancolton (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a poor argument. No, that does not mean Cat. 4 hurricanes are more notable at all. As I mentioned before, there are three times as many Cat. 4 hurricanes, which means there should be three times as many Cat. 4 hurricanes on the deadliest hurricanes list. By that logic, there should be a List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes, as well, since many of them were also on the list. And why not Category 2, since Fifi was 4th on the list and it was a Category 2? Why should these articles not exist? a) It'd become too much. Since 1995, there have been 21 Category 4 storms alone, along with 9 Category 5 hurricanes, resulting in an average of 2.3 Category 4 storms per year. Given there have been 104 hurricanes in general since 1995, that is an average of one out of every five hurricanes that would appear on the list. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moderate keep. I've been asked to comment on this article, and whether or not it should be deleted/delisted. If it were kept, I agree with jdorje that you would have to include category 5 hurricanes within the article.  Not counting a category 5 hurricane as having gone through category 4 first makes little sense to me.  I saw a passage about not including tropical depressions in one of the table due to data issues.  Considering typical NHC error on intensity (about 1/2 a hurricane category), that comment could disqualify any of the storms listed within this article as well as any related hurricane category lists within wikipedia, let alone tropical depression inclusion in a certain table.  While I don't see a strong reason for this page to exist, I don't see a strong case for it being deleted either.  NHC considers major hurricanes (category 3 or above) as unusual or rare...we can go one or more seasons without one...so hurricanes of category 4 strength are notable, if that was the notability definition you wished to use.  I'm going to read up on notability...some of the other comments made previously are making me reevaluate what notability really means.  Category 2 or 1 hurricanes would not be notable merely because of their wind speeds since they are so common, so I'm not concerned with lists for weaker hurricanes being created.  There are lists on wikipedia that are less useful, in my opinion.  If you included category five storms within this list and rename it something like Atlantic hurricanes which have reached category 4 strength the usefulness of the article would increase.  I can imagine people finding the article useful, if modified in this fashion.  I don't think it should be deleted merely because it does not focus exclusively on landfalling tropical cyclones.  If deletion is passed because the article is considered original research, any of the project's ACE pages would also be up for deletion on similar grounds. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some evidence that specifically talks about category 4. I feel that be a major hurricane merely clumps it together with 3, 4 and 5. In this case it should be a [List of Atlantic major hurricanes] which would pass under notability. Also Category 5 hurricanes are notable in their own merits and are tlked about as a single entity. I feel that this article cannot be supported as being notable by itself. Seddon69 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Seddon, as per our discusson on IRC. From WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  In this case the question is whether category 4 hurricanes, as a group, are notable, and the wikipedia guideline is to look for independent/outside sources that make that distinction.  The easy comparison here is to look at category 5 hurricanes, where such a distinction IS made by a lot of sources; see here and here, among many others.  But is it possible to find similar examples for Category 4 storms?  I do not believe so.  Therefore, most of the arguments up to this point on both sides are misguided.  It does not matter how rare or common such storms are (lists can be any length, if the list is otherwise justified), nor that the article gives an excellent summary of the history of many major hurricanes (side note: a "major hurricane" is defined as Category 3 or greater), nor that there's sufficient reference material to write good summaries of each storm (every Atlantic storm since 1851 has enough material for a good summary; that doesn't mean that List of Atlantic hurricanes beginning with the letter A would be a good list, although it would cover nearly as many interesting storms as this article does).  In summary, this list does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines, and so I am casting my vote for delete.  As another side note, however, you could probably make a case that List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes does meet notability requirements, as that's the cutoff for a "major" hurricane which the NHC does use as a criteria for some lists and danger assessments. — jdorje (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By that logic, category 4 hurricanes/typhoons would be non-notable yet category 1, 2, 3, and 5 would be notable. If a storm has reaches category 1, it is no longer a tropical storm.  There is a LOT of research out there singling out hurricanes/typhoons/severe cyclonic storms as a subgroup from weaker tropical cyclones, and press coverage increases significantly for storms that have winds of 65 knots versus 60 knots, which would therefore make storms reaching category 1 strength notable.  There have also been published studies mentioning that most tropical cyclones which reach hurricane/typhoon strength peak out at the category 2 level.  So even though they're the most common, category 2 hurricanes are somehow more notable just because there has been specific research mentioning category 2 hurricanes?  Because researchers and the media do nothing special for category 4 hurricanes, that makes them non-notable?  Have I understood your point correctly?  To me, that would more fully open the pandora's box that led to this deletion suggestion, for better or for worse.  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe there are three differences. First, WP:N speaks about sources being "independent of the subject"; although it is a bit vague on this, my interpretation is that internal research on a particular category would not in itself make a list of that category's storms notable. Second, research or articles that simply mention a particular category are not relevant to this argument (JC please take note, as this is primarily what you are pointing to); we are not talking about individual storms but about the list itself - note that the two examples I gave for the Cat5 list are basically duplicates (though with much less detail) of the WP list article itself.  Third, the cutoffs are as you say, with the distinctions being of category 1+ (aka hurricanes), category 3+ (aka major hurricanes), and category 5; none of these include the 3/4 boundary which is the one in question here. — jdorje (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This site states that Major hurricanes, categories 3 4 and 5, are "rather rare". This means that category 4 is a major hurricane, notable, and are just as notable as a category 5. Juliancolton (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rarity is not a criteria for notability. Secondly, that site does not help your argument as it distinguishes between "major" (3+) and non-major hurricanes.  Thirdly, the source does not give a LIST of any hurricanes, much less category 4 hurricanes, so it cannot be used as an example of why a list of category 4 hurricanes is a notable list. — jdorje (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a good argument. By that theory, a meteor shower that occurs once every hundred years is not notable. Or, that an illness that effects 2 1 person a year is not notable because that person didn't die. And yes, in this case rarity is notablity. Juliancolton (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're reading more than he actually wrote. Saying that "X is not a criterion for notability" is very different from saying "X is a criterion for non-notability." Someguy1221 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After going over the notability page (again), I think the list is notable because a) category 4 hurricanes are a subset of major hurricanes and common sense would indicate that if major hurricanes are notable, so would category 4 and 5 hurricanes since they are subsets of major hurricanes (common sense is mentioned in the notability page). Secondly, there are plenty of references (HURDAT particularly) indicating intensity of tropical cyclones, which makes it easy to determine which storms fit category 4 intensity.  Hurricane categories are explicit in the best track for hurricanes impacting the lower 48, and NHC has created a list of hurricanes impacting the United States in particular since 1851.  I believe the common sense provision would prevent lists being made of category 1 and 2 hurricanes.  To some degree, the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes article is already a variation on a list of category 1 or greater tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Basin.  There is no list, that I know of, that lists hurricanes of any category other 5.  For that matter, there are few sources that lists tropical cyclones by amount of rainfall country by country.  Does that fact kill any of the TC rainfall lists that I've been creating for the project?  Also, the page does mention that there are exceptions to any wikipedia rule.  Some of us have seen firsthand what happens when we apply hard and fast rules to articles, their contents, and people's reactions to comments made about such rules and articles...people can get testy and drop out of the project, even if that was never the intent.  Maybe that's why we have fewer people in the project now than several months ago.  Since the article is already created, I still vote to keep it.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then this article is to be kept then. We should wait for the other parties to voice their opinion before this AfD is closed but seen am im here i think that we need to strongly think about whether a similar list should or should not exist, and also whether this means that there is an argument that all cat 4 hurricanes should have an article whether or not they make landfall. I will start up a discussion on the WP:TC talk page but we need to decide whether articles like that should only be published if they are of a high enough standard otherwise it may result in huge number of low quality low notability article that are simply not gonna get very far. I think that we should rely on common sense in these cases. Seddon69 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I personally do not think major hurricanes are notable. Though they are somewhat rare, there are, on a long term average, two of them per year, and since 1995 there has been an average of 3.7 per year. Though there are clear sources for what were Cat. 4 hurricanes, as Jdorje mentioned above, those same sources could be used to create List of Atlantic hurricanes beginning with the letter A. There would be no need to make such a list. By contrast, the tropical cyclone rainfall by country is very much notable, as it very much so lists the top 10. At the same time, there would be no need to have an article on the 11th through 20th greatest tropical cyclone rainfall by country. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DR, the notability "guideline" (not rule) is to be applied to *topics* not to individual bits of data; while I'm not sure which rainfall lists you refer to (Category:Lists_of_tropical_cyclones has no rainfall list articles or topics), including rainfall data on an already notable topic is certainly justified. Further, common sense does not say, to me, that an arbitrary subset of a major list is notable; while I'd agree that List of Atlantic hurricanes and List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and maybe List of major Atlantic hurricanes would be justified, that does not imply that a Category 4 list is.  Again, notability applies to *topics* and the topic here is the list itself.  Seddon, I'm fairly sure by the notability guideline almost every hurricane with a TCR will qualify as notable enough for a separate article, though common sense (and wikiproject guidelines) limits the creation of so many stub articles. Hink, rarity is still not a criteria for notability, nor is commonness a criteria for non-notability, and I think arguing based on that isn't going to get us far.  That said, I am through arguing on this topic and if the decision is to keep (as it seems to be based on people liking the article, and despite its non-notability) then I'll instead turn my efforts in getting JC to fix it.  — jdorje (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't have any problems with this list, notable and well sourced.-- JForget 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable subject within Wikipedia guidelines. It meets WP:LIST and is relevant notable and verifiable information Pilotbob (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2008 (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.