Talk:Tropical Storm Philippe (2023): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:41, 18 October 2023 editHavocPlayz (talk \| contribs)300 edits →Article notabillity: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:42, 18 October 2023 edit undoHavocPlayz (talk \| contribs)300 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:'''Oppose''' per Animem and Pierre ] (]) 21:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		:'''Oppose''' per Animem and Pierre ] (]) 21:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
	:'''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. ] (]) 06:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)		:'''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. ] (]) 06:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
	:'''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.~~'''~~ ] (]) 12:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)		:'''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. ] (]) 12:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
	'''Oppose''' per Pierre ] (]) 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		'''Oppose''' per Pierre ] (]) 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:42, 18 October 2023

Articles for creation Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 October 2023 by reviewer Kline (talk · contribs).

Weather Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.

WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Tempête tropicale Philippe (2023) from fr.wikipedia. (1179866435 et seq.)

Article notabillity

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 Misplaced Pages's notability standards and a deletion discussion should be started here. Sria-72 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Categories: