This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Tropical Storm Erick (2007) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? ZZZ'S17:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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}}.
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. ZZZ'S08:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that your argument being a threat to shipping lanes is very common[...] is valid in the context of determining basic notability: if it has been reported by reliable sources, as it is, the source can be used. The WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply: if the sources were only to be database reports or extremely short, which is not the case. Both the sources are further than trivial mentions. These magazines don't report every single storm, only the significant ones. Although Erick is one of the lesser significant ones, it's still reported and significant in this context.
For the third source, I don't consider being paraphrased an issue: the article is rather a summary about the most significant storms of the year, and thus establishes standalone notability towards the subject.
I don't yet have an opinion about the size, but as your merge has been contested, you need to follow the instructions at WP:BLAR and notify any likely participants, such as the creator. NotAGenious (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the merge discussion on the season talk page. Almost nothing was added compared to the section in the season article, so I don't think this should be too controversial of a merge. Not sure why the article was made in the first place, it's a fish storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: NotAGenious since I can see that you're still editing after I posted my argument. ZZZ'S 16:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
