Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/archive3
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by User:Dana boomer 10:27, 2 March 2013 [1].
Tropical Storm Erick (2007)[edit]
- Notified: myself, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones
I am nominating this featured article for review because I was the article's creator, writer, primary editor, and FA nominator, and the novelty of being responsible for writing the shortest FA in history has worn off. The article has slowly been hacked away at in the past several years due to increasingly strict weather-related article information-inclusion standards, and it can no longer, by any stretch, be called my best work or the project's best work. Most of the tropical cyclones project has long been in favor of merging the article, and as soon as this is demoted, I intend to act on that proposal, so I ask that this process by hastened a bit. Thanks all. Juliancolton (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As a member of the project (and longtime proponent of merging), I support everything JC said above. There's nothing that can't be merged into the season article, and the article is so short that it shouldn't be featured. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's established consensus for a merge, the article doesn't need to go through the full FAR process. Maybe we can leave it up here for a week or so, just to see if there are any comments from outside parties? After that, you can go ahead and perform the merge, and then one of the delegates can do the "paperwork" for the technical delisting. Dana boomer (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Juliancolton. Also, based on the length of this section, an article for Erick is not necessary.--12george1 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I still oppose a merge, I understand where JC is coming from. Unfortunately, many people have decided to trim down the article, and a combination of high standards for the project (which I to some extend agree with) since TAWX's Darby article in late 2010 that was later merged. Over the next month or so, there was a push to merge many articles such as Hurricane Claudette (1991); however, many of the articles were low quality, and I supported most of them. Since then, I've tried to prevent it from getting out of hand; however, after this and to a lesser extent this, I've decided fighting over 500 word articles was not worth the trouble, and nothing was getting done, and instead, focus on actually building an encyclopedia, not debating on whether content should be moved. As said, I still want the article to be kept, but if it means fighting tooth and nail over it, I may or may not be okay with seeing the article go if it means keep peace and allowing us to focus on more important storms. I've long suspected that some users (not you Hink) have been trying to merge articles so this article is more of an outlier, and so it gets merged. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The high standards that you talk about are just avoiding trivia (like naming, ACE, saying "the storm did not affect land"), and not having an excessively long meteorological history for a storm that wasn't meteorologically significant. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I still oppose a merge, I understand where JC is coming from. Unfortunately, many people have decided to trim down the article, and a combination of high standards for the project (which I to some extend agree with) since TAWX's Darby article in late 2010 that was later merged. Over the next month or so, there was a push to merge many articles such as Hurricane Claudette (1991); however, many of the articles were low quality, and I supported most of them. Since then, I've tried to prevent it from getting out of hand; however, after this and to a lesser extent this, I've decided fighting over 500 word articles was not worth the trouble, and nothing was getting done, and instead, focus on actually building an encyclopedia, not debating on whether content should be moved. As said, I still want the article to be kept, but if it means fighting tooth and nail over it, I may or may not be okay with seeing the article go if it means keep peace and allowing us to focus on more important storms. I've long suspected that some users (not you Hink) have been trying to merge articles so this article is more of an outlier, and so it gets merged. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Julian, since there appears to be a consensus for a merge, why don't you go ahead and implement it. Just drop a note here when you're done, and Nikki or I will take care of the technical stuff with the FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delist and merge, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.