Talk:Tropical Storm Debby (2006)

Merge?

OK, someone added a merge notice to this article. So, by definition, we should discuss whether or not to merge it. I think the article should stay for these reasons.

1. It is the most comprehensive source for Debby information online. Nowhere else has the storm history using the Tropical Weather Outlooks and many discussions.
2. What would it accomplish? This is a pretty good Debby article, IMO. By merging it, you would lose information on it.
3. We already agreed that all storms for post-2005 would get articles eventually.

Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All the "storms that did nothing" storm articles were kept. This is an awesome article, and I don't see any valid reason merging it. I'd say KEEP! :) RaNdOm26 09:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's well sourced and written. Someone waving around Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information will say this level of detail is arguably unnecessary for a fishie. Someone saying Wikipedia is not paper will say we can have this level of detail for those interested in the development, timeline and consequences of this storm. I agree per Hink and random26. TransUtopian 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as long as equal effort is put towards the Eastern Pacific storms of which all have as much information available as does the least interesting Atlantic storm which has an article (See Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Otherwise, merge. It's the inconsistency and bias towards the Atlantic that drives me crazy. A fishspinner in the Atlantic is no more notable or interesting than a fishspinner in the Pacific. I don't know how available some of the information for the other basins is, I would imagine the Aussies are pretty good about it. So those storms should also have articles. I would think there are some far more interesting storms than Debby that don't have articles, but do have the information available to make them. It has been awhile since I have sifted through the JTWC archives, but from what I remember they are pretty good. Well, that's all I have for now. --Holderca1 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's probably not going to happen. The reason for the obvious bias is because more people are interested in the Atlantic. I think every named storm on the planet should get an article, but lack of interest is the biggest problem. You can't force people to make articles for EPAC storms. If people want to make Atlantic articles, why are you going to stop them? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is shown by the season articles. With the exception of 1997 PHS (A) and 2003 PHS (FA), most of the seasonal articles are very poor (and worse than the atlantic equivalent). I see no harm in doing the Atlantic stuff preferentially, though we shouldn't exclude the EPac storms when someone wants to write good articles :)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no, there always has been and always will be more interest in the Atlantic basin than the EPac, but I don't think there is more interest in every little storm. For most of last year only the major storms had articles, Katrina, Rita, Wilma and others. Most of even the landfalling storms didn't have articles. Tropical Storm Allison used to be the only TS with it's own article. But the trend started to change late in the year when Alpha hit Haiti and caused 20-25 deaths, which by Haitian standards isn't all that notable. Alpha got an article as did every other storm that followed it. With the unusually high number of storms and with very few of them being fishspinners, it looked odd to some to not have articles for these few storms. Well, the EPac is still creating articles the same way it and the Atlantic did prior to last year. But I think there are a few storms in the EPac that should get an article that doesn't have one. Daniel, which I have worked on a bit in my sandbox, being the most deserving. --Holderca1 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Last year, some non-major storms had articles; Cindy, Emily, Maria, and Ophelia all had articles. The reason most storms didn't have articles is, again, because of interest. A lot more interest joined the WPTC, which is why many more storms got articles. If you want to make Daniel, go ahead, and good luck with it. If you want to make Tropical Storm Gilma (2006), be my guest. However, you can't force people to make EPAC articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cindy didn't get an article until November 9, 4 months after it dissipated. Emily made landfall twice as a major hurricane and deserved an article (also deserved to be retired). Maria didn't get an article until December 29, nearly 4 months after it dissipated. Ophelia lingered off the coast for what seemed like a month and there was debate and several reverts on it as well. I don't want to force people to make EPAC articles, I want people to stop forcing people into not creating articles. --Holderca1 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding you wanting people to stop forcing others into not creating articles, I agree. If someone wants to make an article, you shouldn't stop them. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am reading into wrong, but when you say "you shouldn't stop them," it sounds like you are referring to me in particular. I have never stopped anyone from creating an article. I may disagree that some articles should exist, but I have not merged an article, redirected an article, or put an article up for afd. But maybe I just read it wrong. --Holderca1 01:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, yea. I meant that, in general, you (as in any person) shouldn't stop articles from being created. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I say that we don't merge Debby, cause for the Atlantic, all storms should have their own articles. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

New discussion

Completely disregarding what I said above, I'm now feeling the article should be merged, seeing as it was very non-notable. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree; there's enough content to justify the article's existence. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't justifying the article's existence. It's justifying its notability. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's even easier, since it has several independent sources, even if the links are dead at the moment. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. None of them justify its notability. The storm didn't do anything. I'm the author of the article, and even I'm admitting that. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't own the article; your opinion of it has no greater bearing than that of anyone else. If a topic is covered in multiple reliable sources, it is considered notable; that's among the most basic concepts of Wikipedia's inclusion assessment. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that I was the author of the article, no need to get upset ;) --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are a couple of non-NHC sources. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

• while passing 140 miles (225 km) miles south of the Cape Verde islands, ... hun? is it a typo?
• Banding features continued to improve as the system slowly strengthened., what does improve mean in that case?

Lincher 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I clarified them. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Thanks for the clarifications. Lincher 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion #3

This is sorta a "Don" case here. Agencies warned of heavy rain (which, in this case, didn't have any impact), tropical storm warnings were issued, and prices of commodities went up slightly due to the storm. Thoughts? HF25 15:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Don was kept, and this should remain the same. Why merge a GA? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Oppose - High quality article should be kept, I personally disagree as it is a GA. JG ^{(edits · sandbox)} 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That didn't stop the mergers of any EPAC articles. That said, the season is already a good topic, and the main article is featured. My philosophy is not to bother too much with mergers when the season article is good or featured. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion #4

Debby had minimal impacts, and the impacts that occurred could easily be merged with the article. Incognito Fedora (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Tropical Storm Debby (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Procedural GAR after article was merged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.