Talk:Hurricane Helene (1958)

message: There is currently little information associated with this article. As it is, I propose it be merged. However, this storm might be able to stay.
*Add much more information about the Reconaissance. If it was the first flight, how accurate was it
*"According to reports, the damage wrought by Helene was considered worse than the damage from Hurricane Hazel." Who reported it? What damage occurred? $11 million in damage is very little. Was the damage localized? Was it widespread yet minor? Was there significant flooding that caused the damage, or was it tornadoes? 
*What makes the storm notable? The intro should always specify why it is notable and thus, why it should have its own page. "Hurricane Helene was of the most intense storms of the 1958 Atlantic hurricane season" According to the seasonal article, it was the most, so why not start with that? 
I still think the storm should be merged, but out of this, Janice, and Ella for the season, this one is the most likely to stay in the long run, and even that is pretty low. Why do you continue making stub articles when there are too many low-quality articles as it is? Hurricanehink 15:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first read about this storm a few months ago while doing the old articles, I was pretty intrigued.  This storm followed the same path as Ophelia, but as a category 4!  It came within 10 miles of being the most northerly landfalling cat4 storm (although it's not alone in this, as Hurricane Diana (1984) also did so).  As for damage, I'm sure the damage *in some places* was worse than that of Hazel.  Hazel hardly touched the outer banks for instance.  In summary, although I like this storm, I basically agree that unless more info can be found it should be merged. — jdorje (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added more infoStorm05 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, this article may make it after all so im upgrading it. E-Series 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The storm wasn't notable. Damage was infantesimal. Not much useful info in this article. Merge it. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that I'm disagreeing with you exactly, but to continue with the comparison the storm is more notable than Ophelia (though much less info is available). — jdorje (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is, it should be merged, badly. However, there could be enough information out there to justify an article, the reconaissance section in particular. There should be more on damage as well... it was practically a Category 4 landfall! I say we give it a week. Storm05, does that sound fair? Hurricanehink 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A week is fine, i've already added a picture for the storm. Storm05 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He's right. Little was added, and little probably can be added. Agreed with merge. Hurricanehink 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Against Merge- added more info and picture. Storm05 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I'd say hold off on merge for now. This looks like it could possibly stay... Hurricanehink 16:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [lowers axe] It's gonna need some more work though . -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Several sources claim 125 mph or 135 mph winds were felt on land from this storm.  However, the source reports no hurricane-force winds on land. So what gives? — jdorje (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I thought the MWR article explicitly stated 125 mph winds along the coast.  Added the storm total rainfall graphic.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winds?