Talk:Tropical Depression Gener (2008)

Merging
This one really doesn't seem notable enough for an article. It has three points, which are all out at sea. There were only a couple of formation alerts, which really shouldn't be presented in the infobox like that since this is not in a database somewhere. The impact is so vague, so it doesn't seem like a good idea to start an article without any reliable information about it. This system has a poor, underdeveloped section in the season article, in which all this information could fit. That would be the place to start. Potapych (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I Strongly disagree with merging it since it is an Offical tropical depression of the 2008 PTS - Also the JTWC may well of not of issued any warnings but the JMA issued warnings which for some reason are not reflected on the tracking map. Also the section in the season article is fine as it is IMO. And since the HKO dissagreed with the JMA their are not likley to be any impact reports. Also a few weeks ago on IRC me and Hink were talking about the 2008 PTS and we didnt feel that Gener needed to be merged. Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that Gener shouldn't be merged. I happen to agree with Potapych, in that it's not notable at all. JMA issues advisories on tons of depressions, but unlike any other basin, JMA depressions aren't numbered, they usually don't get full advisories, and they're rarely mentioned again by the RSMC ever again. I'm also a bit concerned that there aren't any sources used that are independent of the warning agencies. No news coverage or independent links makes me think it's pretty un-notable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources:, , , , , , , , , , (good rainfall info). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one has nothing new, the second has little than what would be in an advisory, likewise with the 3rd, and the 4th (which is a copy of one of the other ones), and the 5th (which is a copy), the 6th looks like an advisory which says more about what could happen than what happened, nothing new in the 7th, or the 8th, the 9th one looks like a typical weather forecast, the 10th looks like an advisory, and the final one is an advisory, which only has one piece of info that says that precipitation did fall, but nothing beyond that. All of the links you provided to me indicate that this storm was basically a rainshower in the monsoon that did nothing. Also, all of the links were from when the storm was active. Need I mention Wikipedia is not a news report. The only source from after the fact was the Philippine WMO report, which basically confirms the depression did nothing and was not notable in the least. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I really feel the article should be merged. It is full of redundancies and non-information. It didn't do anything. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with this one, this can easily be stated in a few sentences in the season page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)