Talk:1782 Central Atlantic hurricane

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Redirect

I've reverted the redirect. If a merge, deletion or otherwise is desired, please present a cogent argument here first. Benea (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda joking. There is not enough content here for this to be an article. It's not even formatted like a hurricane article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD. That there is not enough content to be an article is a ridiculous argument. There is plenty of context and content. There is no justification for this, but afd if you want on any reasonable grounds you can think of. But a lack of formatting for whatever a 'hurricane article' might be is not a deletion or merge argument. There are ample other sources for this article, and I will attend to this now. Benea (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this article gets expanded, I am more than happy to see this article stay. AFD is not the place for merge discussions. And lack of content is a fairly good reason for a merger, all it means is its content is moving somewhere else, it can be undone with any administrative intervention. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, one thing I question - are there ample other sources? I did a bit of research on this storm, and I couldn't find much. It seems that the storm remained offshore and killed a bunch of people. Granted, that does make it notable. But the one source that's in the article doesn't even mention this exact hurricane, unless I'm mistaken. It mentions a hurricane in 1804, but the 1782 event is only called a storm. Mind you, I don't doubt this was a hurricane, but the info that's out there doesn't appear to refer to it as such. I think YE might have been a little rash in redirecting without discussion, but I'm glad we're having a discussion now. It seems the more notable event here is the shipwreck, and not necessarily the storm (since I can find little info on the storm itself), so perhaps it should be an article on the fleet or shipwreck instead? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources, did you use googlebooks? You could try Divine Wind : The History and Science of Hurricanes (which given your interests I'm sure you are familiar with) which calls it a 'central Atlantic hurricane'. The description of Grave's fleet's destruction is also in the source, so yes it does mention this event. I'm currently working on an expanded version. Though what you did YE could hardly be called a merger. Very little content was moved, which if the subject is notable, as I really can't imagine you can argue that it isn't, is a good sign that a separate article was and is viable. There was both far too much context and content from the beginning for this to turned into a redirect on the grounds of a 'lack of content', certainly far too much for the glib statement such as was made. If your project accepts that hurricanes are notable, that this is one of the more notable ones since it was so destructive, and that there are many sources about this hurricane (there are), then there seems to be no sustainable argument against having an article on this hurricane. Benea (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how many sources go into detail about the hurricane's lifetime, or impact outside of the shipwrecks? If a hurricane does one thing (such as a shipwreck), and there isn't much info elsewhere, well, I can see where YE is coming from. That being said, I don't think this is the sort of article that will look like most other hurricane articles. I only brought up the idea of the shipwreck article since the storm isn't notable on its own, but rather the shipwreck is notable. Compare that to Great Hurricane of 1780, which has a distinct track and has a wealth of knowledge on the storm's track and intensity. Given the time period, I doubt there is much info on the storm's intensity or track, which likely explains YE's urge to merge... pardon the rhyme :P Do you think the article should perhaps be retitled, since the focus is more on the shipwreck instead of an entire hurricane? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes no sense

A redirect makes no sense here. We've got a considerable amount of text here and it's not even a stub. There are many smaller articles on the Wikipedia. And as to the citations, that could be remedied. Improvement is better than what amounts do a deletion of the article. The redirect here was done even before the discussion. So the article was never given a chance. --Maxl (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]