Talk:Tropical Storm Philippe (2023)

	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 articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 October 2023 by reviewer Kline (talk · contribs).

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Caribbean Low‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article notability

One support argument stated that the storms didn't need articles but didn't specify why. Another argument citing failure to meet notability as a result of more notable storms elsewhere was refuted by WP:OSE. Overall, both the quantity of and policy usage by the opposition outweighed the strength of the arguments in support of a merger. Therefore, a consensus exists against merging Phillippe into the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 03:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I seriously do not believe this storm deserves an article. It had VERY little meteorological significance besides being the longest lived tropical storm (which, to the casual reader, isn't important). No damages or deaths were reported, likely had minimal if any impact on land. I don't think this meets Wikipedia's notability standards and a deletion discussion should be started here. Sria-72 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The same could be said for articles Tropical Storm Harold (2023) and Tropical Storm Ophelia (2023), no victim and minimal damage! Is it because they affected the United States that they should be kept and Philippe should not because it affected other countries? The info in all those articles is too large to be integrated in the Season article and they should all be kept. Pierre cb (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you on that, although I feel like Ophelia had enough impacts to make an article necessary. I take issue with the fact that it seems like ANY storm that hits the U.S. HAS to have an article. This needs to be looked into in the future because if this trend continues, it's going to have a negative effect on the project as a whole. ChessEric 20:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the issue as long as we are not simply ignoring other places. The USA with its humongous (and English) media industry allows us to more easily establish notability than a hypothetical tropical storm hitting Tierra del Fuego (pretending that hitting Tierra del Fuego isn't notable). ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that it may have minimal impact, but merging this to the season article would make it too long to read. So it's best to leave it as is. Animem 1 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Animem and Pierre 2600:4041:47C:400:29A7:9374:CC92:43B5 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERX, this isnt considered a constructive addition to the conversation, just so you're aware. I do agree with you though. Poxy4 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral While I'm not sure if I agree, the standard is that any named tropical cyclone meets notability requirements, assuming enough reliable sources exist. Philippe was not particularly special outside of its longevity (and, frankly, tenacity), but an article can exist, it's not exactly the end of the world. AveryTheComrade (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Philippe Harold and Ophelia (2023) are not notable in any form. Phillippe is only well known for the pain it caused people tracking its refusal to die. The other 2 have nothing notable. We have more notable storms in the WPAC that need editors to put effort into them given they meet notability standards. HavocPlayz (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning doesn't make sense; something being known, especially for bad purposes and by many people, probably should get an article. Also, there is no reason we can't both have more articles in the West Pacific and here. And I doubt these three articles are siphoning so much attention away from the Pacific that it is an actual issue. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 19:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Phillippe is only well known for the pain it caused people tracking its refusal to die."

What are you trying to say? Pain? That "pain it caused people tracking its refusal to die" happened during Cyclone Freddy, not TS Phillippe. Also, TS Ophelia is quite notable. Nanchang17 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is not a constructive addition to the topic at hand. It's true that Phillipe was a pain to track for some storm enthusiasts like myself but the real "pain" like Nanchang said is felt by the victims of the storms. Poxy4 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Pierre Insendieum (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but this addition isn't really constructive per WP:PERX. Poxy4 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Poxy4, I already said it but Pierre cb's argument falls under WP:OSE. He also provides very little reasoning for Philippe itself besides OSE and complaining about American-centrism. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 21:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I agree with the oppose, not with the "per Pierre". But thanks for staying on top of the arguments. Poxy4 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I'm just not doing too well at interpretation these comments in this thread. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 21:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, mistakes happen lol. Poxy4 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Harold and Philippe both do not need articles. Not sure about Ophelia then, i really don't think that these storms need articles. Sria-72 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but if you're the one that brought up the discussion as well as your position on it, why did you need to put it down here as well? ChessEric 20:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the inconvenience. This was not meant to be a vote, I was trying to reply to someone else but did not do it correctly, and someone edited it to be a vote in my name. Sria-72 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...I gotcha now. I saw when this edit occurred and gave a word of caution to the person who did that. Thanks for clarifying. ChessEric 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do YOU think you are doing? It's (no offense) very stupid that you are replying to yourself, and/or trying to trick people to agree with you. Nanchang17 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...your not talking about me are you? ChessEric 18:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanchang17, please be aware that we are try to find a consensus. Commenting on other people's content by saying it shouldn't be considered for x reason is not wrong nor is it tricking people to one side. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 19:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, shouldn't they list their content as Comment, not Support/Oppose? They brought up the discussion, so why would they need to put their position down here too? ChessEric 20:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I though you two were being snarky based on the emphasis and repetition of certain words. In terms of Sria trying to tip the balance in their favour, I doubt it really matters all that much if they put it as support or comment, it barely has any information in it. However, Sria should mark it as comment in the future. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay; I understand why you would think that. I wasn't trying to be rude; it was actually a legitimate question due to the concern that it might not be seen that this is a duplicate support. I'm not going to speak on whether Nanchang17 had the same idea I did, although I would imagine that their logic was similar if not the same as mine. ChessEric 20:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i was talking about sria_72 Nanchang17 (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...did you see what happened? ChessEric 23:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric yes, i was trying to say that its kind of silly for the creator to comment on his own discussion he created Nanchang17 (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...well there is technically nothing wrong with that. ChessEric 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support WPAC major typhoons have much more interesting info than these random tropical storms yet they don't even have a page. why should these have them? they do not meet wikipedia's notability standards even though there's a ton of info (that's because the ATL receives the most coverage) Faniolis (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OSE, arguments like "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this" are not considered valid reasons for deletion. If you want to see more wPac articles, you should go create some. Poxy4 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Faniolis why typhoons in here Nanchang17 (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the person who accepted this draft, I accepted this using WP:GNG and not whether it did or did not cause damage or death. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This storm affected the Caribbean, Bermuda, parts of New England, and Eastern Canada, even if it was only minimal, but it was the longest-lived Atlantic storm of 2023 so far not to have an interrupted lifespan. It was similar to Category 5 Hurricane Lee back in September (long-lived, similar track, and affected similar areas), except Philippe remained a tropical storm. I think we should keep an article for Philippe. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Philippe affected several countries across its path to a notable extent and passes both WP:GNG and the WPTC's article notability guidelines. What's more, Harold and Ophelia definitely deserve articles due to their impacts as landfall tropical storms affecting large areas. All of the arguments against these articles simply boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jay Tee⛈️ 17:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Had the storm been in a quieter season, perhaps a merger would be in order, but the 2023 AHS article is long enough as it is, no need to expand it any further by merging this article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. Had this been 2009, def would’ve been merged 2600:4041:47C:400:579:9F36:B5FA:48A8 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nah. This one has enough details and impacts to keep. ChessEric 17:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while this is on the smaller side of tropical cyclone articles, it still has 20,000 bytes and a preparation and impacts section that consists of several paragraphs. I do feel like Pierre CB's argument does fall under WP:OSE. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 19:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, I only think Tropical Storm Harold might be merged. Lunala 62 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harold’s article should be kept too because it had some impact, and made landfall in Texas as a tropical storm. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that really doesn't mean much by itself, just ask Colin. As for comparison of the two, Harold is currently at 19,000 bytes of information while Colin peaked at 12,000 (and Philippe has 21,000). ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nanchang17 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Although not shown in the meteorological history map, Philippe made landfall on Newfoundland as an (powerful) extratropical cyclone, somewhat increasing its notability, especially for Canada. Nanchang17 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Philippe was absorbed by another system over Quebec and it is this system that affected NFLD, not Philippe. Pierre cb (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Hey Sr, I'm unfortunately going to have toboppse this suggestion. I do believe Phillippe was notable enough to have an article of its own—generally speaking any tropical cyclone that affects land is usually considered notable, especially a long-lived one like Philippe. There's just no reason to merge this with the main 2023 article. Poxy4 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre cb, Do you know why the French version has a couple thousand extra bytes compared to English? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am concentrating on Wikipedia in French and I am the one who created the article there. I translated some referenced parts that I found missing in English because I thought there was enough impact to warrant an article in that language. The rest of the article is not from me. For instance, the Meteorological history is not from me and the version in French has evolved too after I edited in English. So the difference comes from the different editors in both languages. You would have to compare the two to find what differs. Pierre cb (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of impacts/conséquences:

Some more areas have rainfall amounts listed.
Prefect mentioned that damage was limited to Guadeloupe (Though me and google translate might be translating it wrong).
Traffic on Guadeloupe disrupted by debris.
Four people had their vehicles washed away in flooding in Gourbeyre but they were saved according to the prefect.
A certain number of communes had their potable water distribution interrupted because of power outages, like Vieux-Fort, who were temporarily isolated by bad weather.
The French article also reports that Dominica, Anguilla, Martinique, St. Barthelemy, and Saint Martin all had power outages.
Antigua and Barbuda got an extra 100 mm of rain?
The Virgin Islands rescue happened on St Thomas specifically.

Glossing over the rest of the sections, it looks like there is nothing added in them. Someone might want to check over my translations especially bullet two. The only part that I think might add notability is the power outage parts and maybe the vehicle getting washed away. Most of the other stuff listed is minor or routine. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sria-72 Guys, can we close the discussion? Nanchang17 (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why Do We Need An Article For Philippe?

Not Needed, It Did Not Pose Any Threats Or Impacts. 2600:1013:B01A:9299:B01D:8D62:9738:6DA7 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus exists against merging per above discussion. Your claim that Philippe "did not pose any threats or impacts" is also untrue. Jay Tee⛈️ 22:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yes, it did impact land, and this has meteorological importance due to it being the longest lived tropical storm. The article is lengthy as well with 20,000 bytes. Insendieum (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1013:B01A:9299:B01D:8D62:9738:6DA7 dont claim. look at the discussion below. see before you act Nanchang17 (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Philippe (2023) into 2023 Atlantic hurricane season

OP got blocked due to a sockpuppet violation. This discussion already seemed to be settled here and in the previous discussion anyways. ~ Sandy 14156 (Talk ✉️) 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Because the TCR significantly cut the storm’s track, I propose a merge back into 2023 Atlantic hurricane season. Not enough standalone content at this point. 71.190.208.91 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already settled 96.236.149.251 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on outdated information. A new discussion should be held. Also, see WP:CCC. 71.190.208.91 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, The impacts section can be easily merged into the main article now that Canada is gone. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The issue seems to have developed into what relation the Canada impacts had to Philippe. I would like this article to be kept if the Canada information is included, merged if excluded. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if the NHC has declared Philippe merging with a non tropical system in the post-season report, warnings where issued at the time and the impacts of the merged system really affected Maine and Eastern Canada. That might be indirect effect but I do not see why they should be eliminated from this article and cause a merger back into the season article. Why eliminate the info and not added an explanation about the indirect nature similarly to any extratropical effects of other tropical systems during this and other seasons. Pierre cb (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. i suggest bringing back those 6,000 bytes drdpw deleted, as philippe was still a part of that system. Shmego (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre cb: your point is well taken, and I have restored, with some fine tuning, the earlier removed information to the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Should we specify that it was the extratopical cyclone that impacted Canada?~~ Sorry, didn't read the right paragraph.✶Qux yz ✶ 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm assuming this should be closed? The issue seemed to be settled per @Pierre cb and @Drdpw's agreement? 96.236.149.251 (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.