Talk:Tropical Storm Danny (2009)

Tropical Storm Danny (2009) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 30, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Delete

The tropical cyclone has not done anything worthy of being made into its own article. Also the page is a direct copy of the article on 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. (Tropical Cyclone K (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Added a deletion template. (Tropical Cyclone K (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I was wondering why the information on the main page was missing for Danny (Someone must have copy/pasted it here). If you wanted it deleted then you should go directlly to the AfD page, list it, and then explain why you want this deleted there or just PROD this. Anyways I think the storm will become notable it is jus tway too early for someone to have made an article about it now I agree. User:Knowledgekid87 talk 01:00, 27 August 2009 (AT)

it is far too early for this to have been made - we probbably wont even need it untill it dissipates - Remember there are other cyclones that do not even have articles despite being as notable or more notable than Danny. Also i redirected it last night and will again in a few minutes since its not needed yet and was a direct C&P of the season article Jason Rees (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of hurricane articles start as copy/pastes and then grow in their own right. It is much harder for them to grow from redirects than from small, attention-needing pages. Besides, we all know that the page will be reformed when the winds come onshore. 152.15.53.213 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that hard to do - ive done several from redirect also it was not needed at that time nor is it currently needed. Jason Rees (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Is there anyway to improve this article? HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major fixes, I can see great grammatical and spelling mistakes, maybe some expansion, better lead, and thats all I can think of right now. Overall, not really that great of an article, well, compared to the 3 other storms in 2009 AHS. Darren 23 ^{My Contributions} 01:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The met. history probably needs to be rewritten. Aside from the aforementioned grammatical errors, it just doesn't flow well; it focuses too much on trivial details and doesn't explain the storm's evolution in a smooth and concise fashion. That said, the preps and impact section needs expansion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the WPTC IRC, I was mentioning merging this article again. Should we merge it or expand it? The article is, I don't know how to describe it, just "not right". Darren 23 ^{My Contributions} 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on this? Darren 23 ^{My Contributions} 00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to merge until the article can be properly expanded/rewritten. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Despite having gotten it to GA a few years ago, I'm thinking this article might not have the legs to stand on its own. There was one drowning death, but all the other damage was of somewhat dubious connection to Danny, and I distinctly remember stretching those connections a bit to flesh out the "impact" section. @Hurricanehink:, @Yellow Evan:, @TheAustinMan:, discuss. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start weeding out the questionable impact and condensing some of the more redundant info. That's the problem with one of these US storms. There is info because it hit a well-populated area, but the storm did practically nothing from a historic point of view. That does bring the notability question into play, so not really sure how to feel. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]