Talk:Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

Draft

OnlyNano, I declined your G6 request to move Draft:Tropical Storm Erick (2007) here because based on the last version of the article I think the page was translated to another lang, converted to a redirect, and then re-translated into the draft page. If that is the case, we need to preserve the history. I don't have the time right now (about to head out for the night) but if you (or someone at WT:AFC or WP:WPOKA) can look into that, I'll swing by again and see if a histmerge is more appropriate here. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boyfrombahia, OnlyNano, and Primefac: Without wishing to open yet another can of worms, I question why Erick suddenly needs an article 11 years after the community on EN Wiki decided to merge it into the 2007 Pacific hurricane season.Jason Rees (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

shrugs not my place to question, but OnlyNano appears to have determined the draft is acceptable so I'm inclined to let them accept it. As far as I can tell the original page was merged unilaterally and with no real discussion, so it might just be the case that no one noticed or cared enough to resurrect it until now. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: Actually there was a lot of heated discussion over several years about its merger, which eventually culminated in this FAR and Erick's merger with 2007 PHS.Jason Rees (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I will be honest, I did not see that in the history, and Special:Diff/541093348 made zero mention of it. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge, again

In the article's second FAR, there was a consensus to delist and merge the article. Approximately 11 years later, a user unaware of Wikipedia's notability and article size started a draft by translating its Portuguese page to the English Wikipedia. @NotAGenious, who was unaware of the FAR, published it to mainspace. The storm still lacked the notability and size to be a stand-alone article, so I redirected it. However, NotAGenious reverted my edit and told me to start a discussion, which I did because I did not want to get into an edit war with him. First, should this article be merged again? Second, NotAGenious, why don't you want this article to be merged? _ZZ^Z'S 17:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be merged, because it does pass WP:GNG and has enough information for a standalone article. Assessment of only a few sources below.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20110710164235/https://www.earthweek.com/online/ew070803/ew070803h.html			multiple paragraphs	✔ Yes
https://eu.oklahoman.com/story/news/2007/08/01/tropical-storm-erick-forms-in-pacific/61742923007/				✔ Yes
https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2915.1		peer-reviewed journal		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

NotAGenious (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

And how does the article pass WP:GNG? The first-two sources you cited are routine coverage, which does not pass WP:SIGCOV (in the first source, being a threat to shipping lanes is very common for tropical cyclones of any intensity). The amount of paragraphs is irrelevant to whether a storm has significant coverage (especially since the paragraphs are literally one short sentences). The second source does not introduce much new information (it literally switches to a completely different storm midway) and partially repeats what the first source says. Both do not mention anything significant about the storm nor its impacts. Erick's section on the last source, while peer reviewed, is close-paraphrasing, if not verbatim of the annual National Hurricane Center (NHC) tropical cyclone report (TCR), and TCRs are also routine coverage (the organization responsible for the information, the NHC, makes such report in the basin for every storm, every season). Also, Erick did not break any notable meteorological records, did not cause notable impacts, and did not cause any fatalities. When taken into account WP:SIZERULE (and before you quote the < 6 000 word note, Length alone does not justify division or trimming, I am not using its size as the sole reason for merging, which you would know if you read this argument), I am pretty confident 501 words (excluding the lead) isn't enough information for a standalone article, especially for a subject that is not notable. _ZZ^Z'S 08:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: NotAGenious since I can see that you're still editing after I posted my argument. _ZZ^Z'S 16:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond within 24 hours. NotAGenious (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)