Talk:Hurricane Dennis (1981)

message: This one needs a full copyedit, with reorganization of the sections.  Looks like decent content. Jdorje 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, did I say decent content?  The impact section is basically a stub. Jdorje 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This storm isn't near notable enough for its own article. The article has minimal info and there's not that much to be said anyway. I say merge it. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Hurricanehink 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added more info, and against merge on this one because theres might be more info in the storm, but you probably have to go through the newspaper or tv news archives if you want more info on this storm (same thing to the other storms), the info on this storm is out there, you just have to find it somewhere. Storm05 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of the info you added is vague or trivial. It was a long lasting hurricane like Irene of 2005? What is that? It was one of two minimal notable hurricanes of the season. Notable is subjective. The storm was not that notable, and this should still be merged. Hurricanehink 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing the best I can do to make this thing notable. Still against merge. Storm05 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be your number one problem. You cannot make a storm notable. A notable storm is a storm that causes a lot of damage or kills a lot of people. Rainfall information and trivia does not mean the storm is notable. It might have been eventful for the time, but Wikipedia is a timeless encyclopedia (more or less). It is nice you are trying, but few storms are really notable. Only the most important storms should get an article. This is why many articles have been merged. You try and make an article for a lesser notable storm and add information, but the article is only a regular storm that did little. This is my thought about it, but I do not feel a storm like Dennis, or Ginny, or Daisy have enough impact or information to justify the existence of an article, simply based on their damage totals or death totals. They typically need more than $300 million (2005 USD) or over 25 deaths, and anything less than that isn't really notable. Hurricanehink 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Dennis (1981). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://digitalnewspapers.libraries.psu.edu/Repository/DCG/1981/08/17/036-DCG-1981-08-17-001-SINGLE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127171506/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1981.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1981.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified