== Interesting argument == 

 If I understand correctly over at Tropical Storm Erick (2007), you're saying that you'd prefer to oppose on the grounds that there are other storms from that season with not a lot of information on them, but you're not sure if you can.  Interesting argument.  I don't think people have approached the idea of allowing shorter or "vanilla" FAs with the proper enthusiasm; I think if we put our minds to it, we can come up with all sorts of ways to deflect the two main criticisms, that the articles are not good enough, and that we're "diluting the brand", letting people get away with something.  Perhaps we could get agreement to allow somewhat shorter, "vanilla" articles to pass if we make the argument that they aren't the best they can be if they are best seen as sub-articles of some parent article, and the nom hasn't yet made the case that Wikipedia would be served better by combining other short sub-articles of the same parent with that article?  To take the case of Julian, he would grumble, and then get to work adding enough information to the other storms in that same season to allow him to make the case that those articles all have enough to make a merge unattractive.  Or, this argument could be seen in the same light as HurricaneHink's current oppose: you can't prove this article won't be merged in the future, and it's not that unlikely because of the other short articles that are sub-articles of the same parent, and we can't promote an article that might be merged.  From a practical standpoint, this might be an ideal way to nudge people into adding material to all sorts of articles on roads, storms, TV episodes, etc.  (Feel free to reply here.  Or not ) - Dan