Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Patsy (1959)

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. v/r - T P 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Patsy (1959)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure whether the storm is notable enough for an article. It it quite short, but on the other hand it was a Cat 5. I'm personally split, but I am listing it here to seek non-WPTC opinions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded this article somewhat. I do feel Category 5 hurricane's are notable for an article (there is more than one way a storm can be notable, Patsy got an article for a reason), though this /might/ be an exception to the rule. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that all of the content is also located here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia has literally millions of articles that are short, but still cover very notable topics. A documented Category 5 hurricane is almost always notable (I can't think of any instance where it wouldn't be), and the article content's presence in full within the season page is creating a highly unbalanced setup (Patsy has two full paragraphs and the Mexico hurricane has two sentences). Until the season article is fully developed, there's no other option. Juliancolton (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a little note, I don't think there would be undue weight due to how long ago it was. Most of the landfalling storms were weak (so there wouldn't be much impact). There were only five hurricanes (which tend to have more info) - two of those had a good amount of impact (Mexican C5 and Dot), another remained at sea, and the last doesn't have any known impact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**Delete - The storm did absolutely nothing. How is a Category 5 system that developed and dissipated in open waters notable enough for an article? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:EVENT, events are generally notable if (a) they have significant coverage in reliable independent sources (this does, per sources in article), (b) they have enduring historical significance (all tropical cyclones with an international designation meet this criterion), (c) they have widespread impact (it crossed a large part of the Pacific), (d) it is covered widely and reassessed afterwards (this is almost always the case with named tropical cyclones), and (e) it does not fall within a category of events that could be described as "routine" (the article notes that Patsy sets a couple of historical precedents, so probably not routine). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that all of the sources in the article come from the warning centres that would monitor it today thus i do not think it meets the independent criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our coverage of tropical storms is fairly deep and detailed. Quite a few of the articles, including this one, have Good Article status. This is perhaps slightly misleading; at least as far as when records became available, these articles can be produced in semi-template manners from public sources. The result is a well-sourced, illustrated article that's very similar to dozens of other articles about hurricanes and typhoons. This article is a part of a series, and the series would be incomplete without it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not bye that this would be a significant gap in the C5 PHS series unless a named storm that lasts six hours and does not have any affect on land is also a gap in a season topic.Jason Rees (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All category 5 hurricanes except for the WPAC are inherently notable IMO. All named tropical system are not. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No their not - for example Cyclone Edzani is not notable for an article because it didnt have any impact.Jason Rees (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The article can always be created. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a ton of short hurricane articles out there. A Category 5 that receives a good amount of coverage can have an article; its intensity compared to its peak winds were unusual. HurricaneFan 25 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It hasnt recived that much coverage outside of wikipedia though, most of the google results are not for this storm AFAICT.Jason Rees (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - holding the record for the basin's wind maximum makes it notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual record holder is Linda with a pressure of 902 mb. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, record holder in the central Pacific basin. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean CPHC AOR :P. In terms of winds speeds, it ties the record with Hurricane John (1994). YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats assuming that the recon was correct in its windspeeds - remember this was before satellites could be used to verify the intensity of a system.Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And remember that there are doubts about the intensity, given the lowest pressure measured. HurricaneFan 25 16:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        See below. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as nominator. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Change to Keep -- After another evaluation of the article, I do realize that it was short, but there is enough information available and displayed to at least let this article stay. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not notable since the storm did nothing bar intensify to the top of a scale that did not even exist at the time and even that is disputed since there it was in the time before satellites. I think the season article would be able to handle it quite easily without causing undue weight to be given to the system.Jason Rees (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to argue over this on-wiki, but would your opinion be different if Patsy occurred in the internet age? I'm just wondering. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No my opinion would be the same - it is just a simple basin crosser that did not affect land.Jason Rees (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - k, I was just asking. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to quote the article no known impact. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Storms don't have to impact land to be notable. Every other EPAC Cat 5 has an article, so why can't this one have an article. With that said, this article is the most debatable of all due to its lack of size. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally they do though. Do any sources actually establish this storm's notability? That is, they say the storm is notable because of X? Sure, one source says it could have had the highest winds in a 40 degree band of longitude, but that same source puts doubt on the storm's winds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - From here, " Only Hurricane PATSY in the pre-satellite era of 1959 may have exceeded RICK in intensity. PATSY had an estimated 150 kt winds in it when investigated by a B-50 reconnaissance aircraft far west of Hawaii as the former typhoon moving northward along the dateline made an excursion into the central Pacific in September 1959. " From here, Patsy is listed top on the top Central Pacific hurricanes. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yea, and the CPHC also doubted the intensity here. For how short the article is, there is little additional info to what is already in the season section here. Its importance as a Category 5 hurricane should already be listed at List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. It should be notable on its own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Right now, 160 knts is the highest intensity in HURDAT, if it is downgraded in a few years, yeah, go ahead and merge it. Yea, it should be notable of its own at least for now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah 160 knots is the highest intensity NOT 150 knots which Patsy apparently was.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That is only 10 knts away. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So what - that doesnt mean that it meets our notability criteria, or that it would not be better written in the season articles.Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I tend to disagree, why have a season section that is equal to or longer than the infobox when it a storm article can easily be made? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Because there is no need for one and it would not necessarily be equal or longer than the infobox. Its only notability factor maybe that it is 10 knots away from the end of hurdat but that is OR and no way to base an article on.Jason Rees (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        How is there no need for one? And yes, the season section is that length. 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        Because as people keep telling you this tropical cyclone did nothing notable. Also the season article isnt the same length as the Infobox though it needs one heck of a tidy up which i hope whoever merges this article can perform.Jason Rees (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone who knows this field re-write the lede? The lede should focus on PATSY as a milestone in the measurement of storms, since that's where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - TBH there isnt a milestone - the only grasp of notability that YE thinks Patsy has is that it is a Cat 5 and is the strongest storm by windspeeds in a 40 deg wide area that is monitored by a separate warning centre than the rest of the Eastern Pacific ocean. If we expand it to cover the whole of the EPAC (ie America to 180 degrees) we find Linda which had stronger winds.Jason Rees (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - It would still be the 3rd highest in terms of wind speed. JR, WPAC is different, environment is much more favorable there. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I didnt say WPAC i said EPAC Theres a big difference.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, but for some reason or another, you made it seem like you were implying that all EPAC Cat 5's have articles and not all WPAC Cat 5's have article, and since the EPAC and WPAC are in the same ocean, they should not get articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No i didnt. Anyway like i said earlier if Cyclone Edzani is not notable enough for its own article then i do not see how Patsy is.Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Juliancolton. Like that user said, I don't see how a Cat. 5 hurricane isn't notable. 89119 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its quite easy to see really - this cat 5 did not cause any impact to land and does not have any impact or significant coverage outside of the warning centres.Jason Rees (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a Category 5 storm is as close to "inherently notable" as anything gets. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope: a Category 5 system is not that notable when it does nothing bar intensify into a cat 5 and thus does not get any coverage outside of the warning centers.Jason Rees (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:EVENT--Cavarrone (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesnt though Per WP:EVENT An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable, this hasnt, the only source outside of the warning centres (NHC, CPHC, JMA, JTWC) that i have seen is an unreliable blog.Jason Rees (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.