Talk:Hurricane Lisa (2010)

Someone please help me with the refrences. I'm new here, as I've said before in other articles, so I'm not completely sure how to write articles. PLEASE! Thanks!!--Ryder Busby (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
It's on the short side, and the storm didn't cause any impact. Everything is just from the NHC, so I don't think it's quite notable enough. I propose it be merged. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed unless impact can be found. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Hurricane Lisa's article is just fine the way it is. I propose for the article to stay the way it is; there is no reason to merge it or delete it. --Ryder Busby (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't fine the way it is. The preparations/impact section is unsourced. Furthermore, there is no content from any sources outside of the NHC. That is also a problem. It is basically a rehash of the meteorological history of Lisa, which isn't notable on its own. There are excessive details, such as every change in percentage in the TWO, and some flat-out incorrect info ("although satellite data reveals the possibility of a much more intense tropical cyclone" - that isn't backed up by the source). It isn't a bad article, and I hope I'm not too off-putting. However, the fact of the matter is that Lisa was a non-notable tropical cyclone, and shouldn't have an article. That said, there are many storms out there that either need an article still, or that have one but are in poor shape. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 06:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the page staying if impact can be found. This page reminds me of Hurricane Darby (2010) in quality and to some extent in notability. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Yellow Evan is right. Wait and see if any impact is found. If there is impact, then keep the article. If there is no impact found, then go ahead and delete or merge the article, but don't delete it now. I still like the article, and do believe it should stay. There is no reason to delete it, but I guess if the article doesn't have the "required" information it needs, then go ahead and delete it, IF there isn't any impact found. --Ryder Busby (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Hink here...this article really isn't needed. There are numerous other, more important articles that need attention. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen:DO NOT delete the page yet! Find impact, or don't find it. I don't care. Just don't delete this page yet. Only delete it if you can't find impact, okay? Thank you.--Ryder Busby (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But we can't find impact. I've searched, and there isn't any. Even if there is some, I doubt there is enough to make it notable. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any either. Go ahead and delete it, but I really wanted it to stay. I still don't see any reason to delete it though, because it's not harming Wikipedia or you. --Ryder Busby (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not harming me personally, but it is harming Wikipedia. There are notability criteria for a reason. I could write an article on my pet dog and it wouldn't harm Wikipedia or me, but it doesn't help Wikipedia either. In the future, I suggest you work on articles with greater notability, which are those that cause fatalities, lots of damage, or just in general affected people. I should note, this article is fairly well-written, and we do certainly need tropical cyclone writers, just more so with more important storms. I'll give you some pointers on this article. For example - there is no need to indicate every percentage change in the tropical weather outlook. There are some grammar issues with verb tenses ("The depression strengthened, and early the next day, becoming a tropical storm", "although satellite data reveals the possibility of a much more intense tropical cyclone", and "Lisa been declared dissipated as it degenerated into a remnant low"). Try working on your writing. It's not bad, and you've certainly got potential! If you want more some pointers, we can talk via our user pages. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That actually wasn't me. I did start the article, but someone else changed it up a little. --Ryder Busby (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm going ahead and merging it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)