Talk:Tropical Storm Jerry (1995)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Tropical Storm Jerry (1995) is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: 2007-03-25

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] Links

Here's so I don't forget them.

More to come. Hurricanehink 21:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DO WE NEED THIS?

Seriously, do we really need an article on a minimal tropical storm that didn't even cause $100 million in damages and hardly caused any deaths? The fact that this tropical storm made landfall as a TROPICAL STORM on FLORIDA, the place in the U.S that gets the most tropical cyclones, makes this article even more unneccesary. Let me give another explanation. Hurricane Vince (2005) only got an article because of its rareness. What is so special about Jerry? Please earnestly consider merging this article with the 1995 hurricanes page.Omni ND 21:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, do we really need a lot of articles? We started with just retirees, then fairly damaging ones. Now, the tropical cyclone wikiproject is, whether you like it or not, a weather almanac, simply based on the huge amount of what's here. The reason I made this is due to its effects over the southeast United States, which I think was enough to justify an article with appropriate information. Is it needed? Probably not, but neither are a lot of storms. Provided a storm is explained well, an article should be kept, which is why I am in favor of keeping some of the 2005 storms. Hurricanehink 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

After the 2005 season, the 1995 season is the most crowded and loaded with information. It wouldn't hurt to see articles for all storms in recent seasons, although I'm not going to go out of my way to make them (I did for 2005). However, there are several other 1995 storms - Allison and Tanya to name two - that have better article cases than Jerry. Still, keep it. CrazyC83 02:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Between you and me, I would be fine with having an article on every storm since 1995. I would gladly help, as it would force us to find more information. However, first we should work on getting the existing articles in the last 10 years to B class or above. Allison could work, though Tanya doesn't seem to have much, if any information on the internet. Thanks for the keep vote. Hurricanehink 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My God, the plague is spreading. Jerry flooded a few roads, that's it. Why are we still doing this? I keep hoping that you guys will run out of information to copy and paste but I guess not. This was why I left the first time. I kept getting rebuffed over this stuff. Hink said it best. Where does it end? There got to be a line somewhere. Pretty soon, you guys are going to be writing articles about how Hurricane Ivan destroyed a urinal in a JC Penny's and how shoppers can't go to the bathroom anymore. It's getting almost that ridiculous folks. We need to draw the line and we need to draw it now. We all need to get together and come up with an agreement on what does and what does not deserve an article and that that line will not ever be crossed. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As the article creator, my line is whether there is enough information. That's it. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a very well-written and thorough article, and I've come to believe that if you can find enough information to create an article on it, then by all means go ahead. bob rulz 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)