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.
Any reason this has less content than the season section? The storm appears sufficiently notable, but the article quality, with all due respect, isn't lacking to say the least. Look I get it - not everyone is gonna write at the level of GC/Hink/CB, but every year since I can remember, the quality of typhoon season articles (and to be fair, outside of the ATL/EPAC this is true although NIO/SHEM don't have the shear volume of storms so it's less problematic there) has been lacking, with nearly every article somewhat unsourced or start/stub. It's not like what we often have with some historical seasons- a few bad articles on relatively important storms that can easily be expanded by someone scattered here and there. That's manageable and someone will likely eventually get around to improving that type of article, and in that instance, a merger is counter productive, but one could argue that's less likely to be the case here because no one wants to touch a huge mess. Normally, given the size of the WPAC season articles, I'm somewhat more lenient with article creation in this basin than my collages, but in this case, given that there is less content, in addition to randomly slapped empty headers, than the season section, which at least mentions impact. We have season articles for a reason. YEPacificHurricane 04:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Should someone try to remove the article? Incognito Fedora (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.png)