Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current merge candidates[edit]

Note: If and when you merge one of these, please add it to the "Merged" list and strike it through using <s> and </s>.

Merged Candidates Failed candidates

Merge discussion[edit]

East Pacific[edit]

John should probably be renamed to include the year in the title.

Elsewhere[edit]

Added Khanun and Nabi. They aren't near notable enough. Storms with identical stats are common in the west Pacific. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye bye, Nabi. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Madeline merged Khanun. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1776 'cane has been merged. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added The Mameyes disaster to the list. I propose that be merged with Tropical Storm Isabel (1985), due to the fact that Isabel contributed to the disaster. OK, voting time.
  • Nina- If it were a typical storm, I would say get rid of it like spoiled food, though based on deaths, it can stay, provided someone ::coughStorm05 cough:: adds some more to it.
  • Chebi- Unlike Nina's 1000 death toll, this is only moderately notable, and should be merged as it is.
  • Yuri- Merge it. Damage was too minor, and the storm surge section does not mean notability.
  • Earl- Not notable enough. There's a lot of information... that's good, but the information is mostly trivial and doesn't show its notability.
  • Yunya- Merge it... again. Sure, it hit the same day of a volcano eruption, but this is a tropical cyclone article, not the Mount Pinatubo, which covers the typhoon well.
  • Danny- I say no, mainly due to the tornado outbreak.
Hurricanehink 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nina: Notable enough but the article sucks. Chebi: Merge. Yuri: Merge without hesitation. Earl: Merge. Yunya: Weak merge. Danny: Undescided, leaning merge (damage a little low and the article isn't that impressive). -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charley merged by Hink. Yuri now merged. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria[edit]

A.K.A. what article deserves to stay, we have two opposing view points on this. Should an article be entirely based on impact, or can fish storms have articles, provided they have enough records or reason for their existence? Two storms, Ginger and Faith, have recently been brought up as possible mergers, despite their content and notability. We should decide once and for all (and I don't mean a discussion between E. Brown and Jdorje ;) ) what defines notability. Let's all gather round and discuss this. I'll give my view later to not influence opinions. Hurricanehink 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not about notability but about content and organization. If there is enough content to justify splitting the storm article off from the parent article, then it should be done. BUT: storm history and trivia should not be considered in this content: they are filler, inasmuch as if you keep looking you can potentially make them infintely detailed. Records and impact can be considered (and I suppose we can argue about which records are just trivia). But if an article has no chance of making it to B-class, there is no reason to keep that article around. Jdorje 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess the storm history and trivia can be considered to some extent (otherwise there's no justification for splitting off of some 2005 storms). It's not that storm history is unimportant: it is crucial to any storm. It's just that it will only go so far before you hit the maximum level of detail at which point you should simply be referring back to the best-track file. Jdorje 04:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that these storms are plenty notable enough for an article. Just expand them to desireable lengths. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Articles that did little[edit]

There are a lot of articles... a lot. Though an article might be well-written, some storms weren't very damaging. Here is a list of storm articles that hit the U.S. and caused less than $100 million (2005 USD) in damage. Here, we should justify their existence, and decide if something should be done about it. Hurricanehink 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any merging, provided that all important information is merged and the season article remains balanced. — jdorje (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought we'd discuss it a bit, especially those that remain here due to status quo. Hurricanehink 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is a must IMO. Here's my thoughts:
-- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comments above so all of the comments would be together. Hurricanehink 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we got Alex, Earl, and Ethel. Anyone opposed to them? Hurricanehink 03:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: I think Earl and Charley-98 should be merged, but the others all kept. They were either an important part of local history (i.e. Amelia, Bret, Ophelia) or a rare and unusual storm (i.e. Charley-86, Ethel, Alex). Earl is the only one that I think is not well written and cannot be made up to standards. CrazyC83 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I am fine with keeping Charley (at least for now) is due to the 20 deaths, but it isn't an important Texas storm, nor was it unusual. Good point on that. The unusual storm part is very debatable though, for many storms could be added for the term "unusual". Hurricanehink 12:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is Alex unusual? Sure it became a major hurricane unusually far north but that's not that big a deal, surely not enough to warrent an article. And Ethel was just on drugs: not really notable, just freakin' weird. I see what you mean with Charley though, which was famous as a destructive extratropical storm in Europe. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why Alex lasted as long as it did is due to the length of the 2004 Atlantic season article. Where it reached major hurricane strength is a big deal, but its overall effects don't warrant an article. I have never and will never believe that Ethel strengthened that quickly. The storm did nothing (ok, $1 million in damage), and in re-analysis the storm will likely be downgraded a lot. Hurricanehink 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Bret and Emily, per concensus. Hurricanehink 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs[edit]

Speedy merge on Max, Gretel, Hudah and Karen. All are tiny stubs and neither has a single reference. — jdorje (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged all but Karen. I contacted Karen's author to see if they could finish it, because Karen is actually notable enough to have an article. Hurricanehink 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged articles[edit]

Tropical Storm Gilda (1973)[edit]

  • The discussion of this is on Gilda's talk page. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Yunya[edit]

  • Proposed as a re-merge. If you want to add more about the volcano damage, you can add to the volcano page, but 1 death isn't enough for keeping. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This hasn't failed yet, so I still vote merge. --Coredesat 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. – Chacor 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Chebi[edit]

  • Also proposed at the top. I am fine with keeping due to the damages, but more is needed. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Named Tropical Cyclones[edit]

  • No need for it. The discussion it at its talk page. Hurricanehink 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Barbara (1953)[edit]

  • Don't know how this one slipped past the fence. I am fine with its merging. It was the only notable storm in a non-destructive season, but still only caused $1 million in damage. Only if the author spent some time to add a lot more would I might reconsider, but not much is there. Hurricanehink 13:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This article should not exist. --Coredesat 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As I said in the talk page, and per above. — jdorje (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutercane[edit]

This certainly does not deserve an article. Neutercane is just a term for subtropical cyclone that was used for about 2 years. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection there, merge it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Coredesat 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium effect[edit]

This should surely be merged into eye (cyclone) now that we have that article. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no objections here either. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. --Coredesat 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warm seclusion[edit]

Apparently this is just another name for extratropical cyclone, with which it should be merged. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewall mesovortices[edit]

Potentially an interesting article, but unless it can go into significantly more detail it should just be covered in tropical cyclone and merged in there. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be part of Structure of tropical cyclones, mentioned above. Hurricanehink 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections, I'd like to merge it into eye (cyclone). For now, I will link to the main article but will merge it in a week or so unless someone thinks this is a bad idea. Runningonbrains 07:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here, that works. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, seeing as Structure of tropical cyclones doesn't seem to be happening. --Coredesat 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Titoxd(?!?) 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Eleven (1999)[edit]

  • There's too little info for this to be kept, and the writing is pretty bad. Merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was done by Cyclone 1 , ask him since he made the article, I only copied and pasted it on the mainspace. Storm05 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already merged it. There was a minor consensus, and I didn't feel the need to contact the author of an article that didn't even ask for the article to be made. However, I just let him know that the article was made and that I merged it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of storms in the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

There's no need for this article, nor for any of the controversy behind such a change. I cannot find where its creation was discussed at all. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Merge, this is unnecessary. The 2004 article isn't large enough to warrant a separate storms article. --Coredesat 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I believe it came about as a result of messages between the two editors of the article. While I think all 2004 Atlantic storms can get articles at some point, that does not mean I think the 2005 format is worthy of emulation. In particular I do not think there is much point to the list article for 2005; so it has absolutely no point for 2004 where the season article gives little beyond the storm summaries.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Completely agreed with Nilfanion. The list of ... article is only needed if the season was very long, and there are articles for most storms. Otherwise, the season article is perfectly capable of handling the 15 storms. As an aside, I do favor having articles for the rest of the storms, but simply put any extra detail that would go on the list of page to the new articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it (merge seems the wrong word when it was just a copy/paste of 2004AHS for the most part). Perhaps it should be deleted now?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion might not be necessary. You never know, we might change our minds in the future and decide it was a good idea. But until then, a merge will suffice. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in Bangladesh[edit]

This one seems unneeded, List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones covers the same topic in a different way. IMO the List is more useful than this one as it complements the storm articles on the major storms better.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Merge anything useful. --Coredesat 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, Merge' anything worth saving. Hello32020 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Michael[edit]

There's too little outside of the storm history. No need for it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclone names used in more than one basin[edit]

Redundant now that List of named tropical cyclones has superseded it. Its unused anyway; maybe a merge isn't appropriate here, but a straight delete? If so is an AfD necessary?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, yes. Just hope that it doesn't become this. Titoxd(?!?) 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Merge or deletion is fine. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got PRODded to death.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lane (2000)[edit]

While the formatting of the article is good, and it is well-referenced, there is too little information there to justify a new article. If more is added, I might change my mind, but as it is it looks like a forever-doomed start class article. Good try, though, Storm05. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Most EPAC storms aren't really deserving of articles because there isn't much to say about them. This one really isn't any different. Sorry, Storm05. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Chacor 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Heta[edit]

There isn't much info there, no sources, and no infobox. Either it should be greatly expanded, or merged. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've summarily merged it in its entirety to 2003-04 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season....--Nilfanion (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Ida[edit]

It's just a copy and paste of the main article. Merge it. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected, since there's no new information. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Sudal (2004)[edit]

The article is pretty much a copy and paste of the seasonal article. The structure is pretty bad, as well. I propose it be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1926 Havana-Bermuda Hurricane[edit]

Extremely stubby, next to no content. Merge Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand- the storm killed 650 people which puts it at mid importantance. and much of that infomation was taken from the longshore book and that the fact is that no one had updated the article since its publication. I adpot it and add more info. Storm05 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Storm05, are you going to adopt this in user space, the season article, or where the current article is? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into seasonal article and expand from there until it has enough to merit its own article. – Chacor 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Carrie (1957)[edit]

Discussion is on its article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Val[edit]

Little to no content. Merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it. But really, you could have just merged it right away since there's only two sentences in it. RaNdOm26 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always best to discuss it first. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions[edit]

Hurricane Esther (1961)[edit]

    • It sank a Navy jet but caused light damage in the northeast United States. Hurricanehink
    • Uncertain; per Ophelia. However this one is much less notable even than Ophelia. — jdorje (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning keep, the article is quite informative and Esther was an interesting storm. §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. $37M in damages and 0 deaths is not enough. The stormfury bit is interesting but that should go into the stormfury article (which is currently a stub). The rest can easily fit in the season article. — jdorje (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The storm storm fury bit describes the Mission in detail into Esther not the Project itself. Storm05 19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine with it keeping, but, Storm05, more is needed. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the 1961 AHS article and the Stormfury article. --Coredesat 00:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added more infomation to the article which means that it stays. Keep Storm05 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm now fine with it staying, but it needs work. --Coredesat 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Maria (2005)[edit]

    • Certainly less notable than Ophelia. No damages and 1 death, but a well-written article. — jdorje (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. There's no real need for it. Yea yea, the season article is too long, but that doesn't matter. This can be condensed, and I'm sure the entire impact section could be put into the List of 2005 storms article. Hurricanehink 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge it. Extratropical damage doesn't count. This storm did next to nothing and the article doesn't blow me away. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This storm and the other 2005 storms listed here are not going anywhere untill the NHC is finished with their report on all of the storms and also this storm may have regained tropical characterisics before hitting Norway and also these days the NHC includes everything including the extratropical impact so dont come saying that extratropical impact doesnt count because it does now. Storm05 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the NHC report on Maria is done. They made no mention of regaining tropical characteristics, and based on this image of Maria making landfall, I doubt it regained tropical characteristics. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. The storm didn't do a whole lot while tropical, but the article is fairly well-written. --Coredesat 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now (GA). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ophelia (2005)[edit]

    • Season article is too long, and too much information there as it is. Hurricanehink
    • Uncertain. Article length isn't a huge problem since this would be merged into the storms list not the main article. The storm isn't notable but the article is good. — jdorje (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Debatable, storm didn't do much but the article is pretty informative. §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- this storm did enough damage that qualifies as notable. Storm05 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think 70M in damage is enough for an article. But I don't think there will be support for removing it either. — jdorje (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep its $70M in damage now but that can go up when the NHC is done with the assesment. Storm05 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NHC is done the assessment. It only caused $70 million, which is a little low. Given the status quo of it remaining, it will probably stay, if not agreed by us then by the 2005ers. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it as is, because it has crossed the Rubicon at which article quality beats article notability as the reason to keep separate. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The storm isn't that notable but the article isn't bad, so I don't have the motivation to start a war on this. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not bad at all..... it has good information and it should be kept, It switched from tropical storm to hurricane a million times and it caused quite a scare.--70.149.34.36 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Vince (2005)[edit]

    • The storm did no damage; the article is a collection of trivia and trivial records. — jdorje (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think it is more notable than Epsilon or Zeta, though not by much. Hurricanehink 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep-the storm did something extreme (formed in waters below 80 degrees, first tropical cyclone to hit Spain and formed at an unusually high altitude. Storm05 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think Epsilon, Zeta, or Vince is notable enough to deserve an article on that criteria alone. Vince is the worst of those articles and should be the first to go. — jdorje (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No its not a worst article and it is notable and theres lots of evidence that makes it notable. Storm05 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big no on Vince going. Being the only tropical cyclone to hit Europe in recorded history is pretty notable in my book. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above although slightly less enthusiastic. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Coredesat 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good kitty 04:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Delta (2005)[edit]

    • $150 million in damages and 7 deaths. Notable enough to stay but it needs more content. — jdorje (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Hurricanehink 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this storm is notable and I cant find anything wrong with the article. Storm05 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The storm isn't notable and the article isn't good enough for me to say keep. Not enough content. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep $150 million in damages is notable and the article looks okay. Storm05 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If damage pictures are needed, I posted a link in the article's talk page a while ago. --Coredesat 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Epsilon (2005)[edit]

    • Same as Vince but a much better article. — jdorje (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't much better... but I'm fine with it staying. Hurricanehink 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say keep simply because it's a very well-written article. --Coredesat 00:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed Storm05 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's well written and it's an interesting storm so I'm not going to whine about this. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with Vince and other articles, why impose these limits when Wikipedia already does not? Good kitty 04:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Zeta (2005)[edit]

    • I'm not really sure why this has an article. Any storm that needs a "notability" section is reaching. — jdorje (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It exists for the same reason as Alice. I am fine with it going, but I doubt other 2005ers would like that. Hurricanehink 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Alice got an article - why shouldn't this? Zeta is notable for the same reasons Alice is (granted, it didn't quite beat all of Alice's records). If we merge this, we might as well merge Alice as well. --Coredesat 00:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Storm05 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one should go, but not before vince does. It is less notable than Alice because it was weaker, didn't affect land, formed earlier, and doesn't have the bizarre double-naming feature. — jdorje (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are wrong again, this storm is a year crosser and as i said above more info will come when the NHC is done with their assessment on all of the 2005 storms (what im trying to say is that at least ten of the 2005 storms will be notable). Storm05 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Any storm going from year-to-year is certainly notable (in the Atlantic at least). Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enh, barely. This storm is notable enough, but there's only so much content you can put in an article like this and I'm not convinced this one has enough to be a seperate article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're going to keep articles on half of the non-notable storms of 2005, why not at least be consistent and have articles on the other half? I have no problem with making articles on every 2005 storm; it would solve a lot of the ugliness of the storms list article. But I do disagree with having easier criteria for 2005 storms than for older storms. — jdorje (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree strongly with having different criteria for 2005 (and onwards) storms and older storms. Maybe the policy of the wikiproject to storms should be changed to one where ALL storms from every season and every basin are deemed deserving of an article and make it the article quality that decides its fate. That at least is clear and consistent. The reason its the 2005 season and its subpages causing this conflict is that on wikipedia it is bigger than Jesus. -- Nilfanion 14:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • While not every storm needs an article, I support every storm having an article for 2005 rather than the list of ... page. In the future, this should not be the case, unless there's another 20+ season. Hurricanehink 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Alex (2004)[edit]

    • I'm not really sure of this article's existence personally. Possibly due to length of season page. Hurricanehink
    • Given that we split the 2005 season not by storm but into a storms sub-page, Alex should be merged back into 2004 and if necessary we should do the same with 2004 (2004 had fewer storms so each storm can have a subsection and a lot more info than 2005, but not as much info as the Alex article has). — jdorje (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning merge, storm didn't do much and the article is mostly storm history. §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support merge. Alex didn't do a whole lot other than become a major at a high latitude. This can easily be stated in the main season article. --Coredesat 11:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this storm has enough info that it could stay. Storm05 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely merge. $5M in damages and 1 death is not even close to notable enough. — jdorje (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats too bad since the seasonal articles are full and more infomation of the storm can be added in its article and that $5 millon in damage can go up since Alex brushed the outerbanks as a Cat 2 hurricane. Storm05 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with adding that more information into the season article? Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I redid the article, and I think it's fine with it being kept. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lili (1984)[edit]

Jdorje proposed this one at the top. I made this due to its off-season notability, though I am fine to see it go. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I redid it, and given that it's a GA I'm archiving this. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Lee (2005)[edit]

  • The whole point of this merge proposal is to see if the consensus is to keep Lee, and by extension all 2005 storms (they are all more interesting than this one) -- Nilfanion 19:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote keep. Good job with working with so little, and this shows that every storm in 2005 could have an article, provided it followed that format. Hurricanehink 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is getting split into too many places. We should keep it at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season, or simply move that discussion into the wikiproject talk page. Anyway I vote keep, but only if we can come up with consistent criteria that justify keeping 2005 storm articles while older ones or those from other basins get merged. — jdorje (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Vote KEEP-Very good one.HurricaneCraze32 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge, as there is simply not enough information to keep it separate. There's a couple of one-sentence sections, which is bad style section guidelines, and the trivia can be moved to the Statistics article, with the rest being a copy of the List of Storms article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. TS Lee's article has enough information to stand alone. Isn't information the reason for Wikipedia's existence? Jake52
    • The forecast section contains information found nowhere else, and the bad section style is a temporary thing, it's more to show a way of laying out the other storms which have more to things to say about them (in Lee they will inevitably be trimmed if it stays). The list and statistics articles have problems of their own adding more isnt necessarily wise -- Nilfanion 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is quite informative for a storm that did virtually nothing. --Coredesat 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge. For storms this pitiful, I don't care if the article is better written than a Clive Cussler novel, it still shouldn't exist. There is nothing resembling notable about this storm. All that needs to be said about it can be said in the main article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back at my past votes on articles like this one, I have changed my mind. I vote merge. It's informative, yes, but still, the storm did nothing and is in no way notable. --Coredesat 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This vote is inextricably bound up with the one on 2005 AHS. If that was a 'no' clearly Lee is the worst of the storms. But that looks like a yes, so this and all the other 2005 articles default out of this. Nilfanion 23:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
B.S. Just because it was in 2005 doesn't mean that we should keep a crappy article on a crappy storm. I can't believe how ridiculous this has gotten. All right! Let's go create articles on weak, pitiful disturbances that did absolutly nothing! -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee needs to go, treat it like Tropical Storm Cristina.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Erika (1997)[edit]

The article is poorly written, includes large copied portions of a weather forum (unofficial), and the storm did very little. Merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I redid the article, no on merge now. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Now FA. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Kate (2003)[edit]

Very stubby, little else than what is directly copied from seasonal article. Merge. – Chacor 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Expand. The article is poorly written, though if someone rewrites it, it might be worth keeping. Reason being is that all storms from 2006 back to an unidentified date are going to have articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just finished redoing the article. It shouldn't be merged now. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging/Archive_1&oldid=1138355896"