Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1958 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

1958 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

1958 Atlantic hurricane season

3 articles

Hurricane Ella

Hurricane Helene

Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, TheAustinMan, 12george1

Everything is up to par. All articles are GA's. I don't believe any additional articles could be made, at least at this time. In the future, with more information, it is possible that Alma, Daisy, and Janice could warrant articles, but at the moment I don't believe that's the case. The only changes potentially to the topic is an FAC run for Helene by TheAustinMan, but that wouldn't affect the topic much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support although I have not spot-checked the articles themselves. Nergaal (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support why not? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both Cleo and Helene's articles claim that their storms were the strongest of the season at this time. Could this be sorted? Auree ^★★ 06:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Im not sure Cleo is worth an article since the seasonal article could be expanded out a bit more to cover Cleo. I know it ~~"Supposedly"~~ was a category 5 hurricane but i dont think category 5 hurricanes are notable unless they did something to land.Jason Rees (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking about that when I wrote the season article, and when I nominated the topic. I fully expect Cleo to be downgraded to C4 (or lower) when reanalysis gets there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why the hec is a Cat 5 not notable for an article????????????????????????? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it didnt affect land and can be handled quite easily in the seasonal article i dont think it deserves an article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - YE, I think your reaction was unnecessary. JR is right. It could easily fit in the season article. Remember that notability isn't inherent. The article doesn't show that this Cleo is that significant of a meteorological subject, no more than super typhoons in the 1950s that didn't affect land. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability is inherited. For instance, all big four sport league athletes are notable enough for articles. I do not think it is unreasonable for all NOAA AOR Cat 5/SUSC/VITC's (as for super typhoons and AUS/SPAC Cat 5's eh, they are a little to common enough) to have articles as they are almost certainly going to have sufficient information. And what does affecting land have to do with anything? Since when do storm's have to impact land to get articles? If they did have to impact land, why do we write an MH section in TC articles anyway? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Generally, storms need impact in order to have articles, since that's when they actually affect humanity, and Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of human knowledge. And you said "sufficient information" is a criteria, but Cleo's content is barely 3 kb (excluding the lede), compared to the season section being 1.5 kb (so it could easily handle the limited additional information). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I saw Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Why do we write the MH section then? You are correct in that WP is the sum of human knowledge, but it is known that Cleo 58 is a Cat 5. No, I said "as they are almost certainly going to have sufficient information" as Cleo may be an exception to this case. Almost all Cat 5's have sufficient information, so why not give articles to all? If a Hurricane Katrina-like storm had only say 2kb's worth of information, would it be merged? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't get your point about the MH, nor your other arguments. There is minimal additional info in Cleo's article than what is in the season article. It's not a matter of something like Katrina or not. The season section has roughly the same content as the entire article, so JR's suggestion isn't that far-fetched. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YE not every Category 5 tropical cyclone on either the Aus or the SSHS scales has enough information available to justify an article, Cleo is a good example of this IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is Patsy on the Pacific side. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merger on Cleo's talk page. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Cleo has been merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]