Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Western Pacific Start class articles[edit]

Though the following storms are somewhat notable, none of these have been expanded since the original author wrote it, and it seems highly unlikely that someone will take the time to find the needed information (outside the JTWC report). Examples of what I am referring to are;

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all (except Joan). All the articles except Dot are pretty much storm history and a very small amount of impact, which can easily be condensed and merged into the season articles. Dot was DYKed a while ago, but that's probably not a strong enough case to save it since there isn't really much more information. --Coredesat (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold up on Joan. The "storm history" has been infused with some impact, so I'll see if I can split that up. – Chacor 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with Dot is that it probably needs more info on impact, especially in Vietnam. – Chacor 02:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, and info can be hard to find in this time period. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added ReliefWeb impact and aftermath and updated the totals. Still trying to find China or Vietnam info. – Chacor 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dot's getting there. Try and find some more impact in the Philippines, as well. Important dates, such as when it reached peak intensity and when it made landfalls, are needed. Trying using newspaper reports from the newspaper archive. A quick search of newspapers containing Dot and published on October 19, 1985 showed this newspaper with some info, so there could be others out there. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Typhoon Bess (1982) (which should really be at the main Typhoon Bess - but that's already at WP:RM) is a start-class article with not much info either. Does this deserve to stay either? 59 fatalities with low damage isn't all that notable except that it got retired, but back then many WPac storms got retired for nothing. – Chacor 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagreed. There was another Typhoon Bess (1974) that was also retired. I think we should wait if we should merge a retired article. There's a couple retired Atlantic ones that might not have that much more info, so maybe we should wait until it's obvious whether it should be merged or whether it could possibly be expanded (you never know, maybe we'll find a good link for Japan typhoon impacts). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Kammuri to the list. There's only two paragraphs for impact, which can easily be copied and pasted into the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Russian response to Hurricane Katrina[edit]

This was PRODded by an anon for some reason when a merge discussion was getting underway. If this article doesn't need to be here, the information should probably be merged to International response to Hurricane Katrina. --Coredesat 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and summarize, as a complete merge would make its section unnecessarily long. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. — jdorje (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it, and while looking through the Katrina articles I saw another one that could be merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina in historical context

Orphaned or dual disambiguations[edit]

Today I was reading over the wikiproject standards and added an exception to the dab rule that seems common: when there are just two storms of the same name, a dab page is not necessarily needed. See Hurricane Andrew. Coincidentally later today I stumbled across the Wilma DAB which is orphaned - nothing links to it or redirects to it. It is therefore useless as a DAB since nobody's gonna search for "Tropical Storm Wilma (disambiguation)". But I'm not sure what to do about it. This fits into the 2-name category as covered by Andrew, but since the 2 names are from different basins there's no possibility for confusion. For the moment I de-orphaned it by linking the Wilma article to it. It's likely that no disambiguation page is needed at all. Also possible is that the Hurricane Wilma article should have a {{dablink}} at the top, but it will sound kind of silly to DAB a hurricane and a typhoon in this way. Perhaps the whole thing should just be merged into Wilma? But then what's to prevent that from being done with all other tc dab's? And how come Andrew doesn't link to Hurricane Andrew - and if it did, shouldn't it then also link to Hurricane Andrew (1986)? — jdorje (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's interesting. For starters, I support merging Tropical Storm Wilma (disambiguation) to Wilma. I think it'd be a good idea for, say, every dab with 3 or less storms to be moved to their name's dab (like TS Wilma to Wilma). A good example of what should be done is with Tropical Storm Waldo, which was used once in EPAC and WPAC. The article should be redirected to Waldo, with the link to Hurricane Waldo being redirected to the seasonal page (1986 was its only use); Typhoon Waldo could be redirected to the seasonal page (1998 was its only use), even though it didn't reach typhoon status. Of course, it can't be that easy. Some problematic dabs that come to mind are the Phonetic alphabet storms (only ones affected are Hurricane Easy (disambiguation), Hurricane Dog, and Hurricane Able), the Greek storms (only ones affected are Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation) and Tropical Storm Delta), recent Western Pacific storms, and PAGASA storm names, though these exceptions can be dealt with later (or maybe just left as is). For now, though, should this discussion be kept here (since it involves some merging) or put it on the Wikiproject talk page (where there have been some discussions about dabs). Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move this to the project page, there is a far broader issue underneath. As a practical matter, the Wilma dab should be at Tropical Storm Wilma (where it makes some sense). Remember, ideally the only link to a disambiguation page should be from the primary topic and hardly anything else. I'd be leery about saying "merge to the name" as a rule. Its much better to have Tropical Storm Alice linked from Alice than have all 19 storms listed on that page. Same principle probably should hold with other storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mentioned above, I'm only for "merging to the name" rule for dabs with three or less articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tropical Storms Jerry and Melissa (2007)[edit]

I know this might be controversial (with Melissa as a GA), but I can't stand seeing Melissa as a GA with only two paragraphs of info. This doesn't mean merge all of the non-notable articles at all. However, these two are really scraping at the bottom of the barrel. We don't need to have an article for every storm. IDK, those stick out to me a little bit. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a GA review/reassessment to make sure someone else thinks it is of GA quality, before any merge occurs. I agree that we don't need an article for every tropical cyclone, but why get rid of one if more than one reviewer thinks is a GA? Thegreatdr (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is that such a short article could be considered good in some people's opinions. Indeed, in the past, I know of an article that was an FA, before it was decided there wasn't enough info, and thus it was merged. I believe that it is up to us as a project to decide whether we should have a separate article. Is there a significantly greater amount of information, worthy of keeping the article separate? IMO, no. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say merge Jerry, for sure, so I'm off to preform the merge... I'm fine with Melissa staying. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Melissa is about the same quality as Jerry was. If we get rid of the one, I think we should do the other as well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both need to go.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


West Pacific typhoon seasons[edit]

Category:Stub-Class Tropical cyclone articles consists mostly of Pacific typhoon seasons from 1945 to 1998, with the exception of 1939 Pacific typhoon season. To cut down on dozens of stubs, what does everybody think about merging them into lists of seasons, like 1950-1959 Pacific typhoon seasons? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea. There are a few developed season articles that do actually list each storm, which would stay, but the rest often have summaries for only three or four storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took the initiative and merged the 1940 seasons together. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

This page is an unmitigated disaster. Pretty much we've been using it as a catch-all for any and all records affecting the Atlantic basin, but in so, it's lost its purpose. So, I recommend an inverse merger, a. k. a. a split into multiple pages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for the de-centralization of the page. I've been in favor of this for months now. Should we talk about a plan of attack for how to take apart the thing here, on the talk page of the article, or just start hacking? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, can you remember to fix the links in the season pages? I just got finished removing a bunch of links to articles that no longer exist.Potapych (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update, the article has been dab-ified. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Florence (2000)[edit]

There is minimal content. If no one wants to do anything with the article, I'll be merging it in the next few days. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm sticking my hand into the lion's mouth here, having committed to doing Kesiny and Fausto, but I hate seeing good prospects go south. If the main editor won't expand it, I'll adopt it. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 06:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main editor has a history of doing a paragraph for an article, then leaving it like that. Are you set on adopting it? If so, would you be working on it sooner or later? If later, than we can merge it, so to remove the stub article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do it now. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Will you be working on it on the page, or a user page? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a slight disaster the last time I tried moving a main page to my user page (it was with Lidia), so I'd rather work on it per the main page. Besides, there are little to no links to the page (all of them are links from our "Things You Can Do" and the tables page, so I can work on it behind closed doors without making it look too conspicuous. Plus, I've already overhauled a new intro and a new infobox pic (same time as the old one, but a side image of it. I'm loathe to using images like the old one in the infoboxes, and leave them in the article body) and split the old paragraph into a prelim storm history and prelim impact, records, and naming (may change if enough preparations exist). Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that works then. We'll keep it for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Tropical Storm Lorenzo (2001)[edit]

Same as Jerry 07 above. I don't see the need to have an article for a weak tropical storm that only has storm history. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I thought we unofficially decided that we would have articles on every storm back to 2000? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I disagree with that. I don't think we should ever have an article on Chris in 2000, for example. Consensus can change, if there was a real agreement on articles for every storm back to 2000, but I don't know how strong of an agreement that was. I don't see the need or purpose to have an article on a minimal tropical storm that didn't affect land. I hate to say it, but that information would be just as appropriate in the season section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article clearly has more information than the season article, and I remember you saying several times that an article can stay if it displays more information than the season article. Lorenzo is a decent article, and it's been around and stable for a while, so I don't see a strong reason for it to be merged. The WPTC goal is To create an encyclopediac overview...including individual storms. While it might not be the best article, it is an encyclopediac overview of the storm, and it includes good information for somebody who wants to read it. So far this month, the article was viewed 93 times. That means that 93 peole read the article to learn about the storm. I don't see why it hurts to keep it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whether the season article currently has enough info in it. It's whether it can handle it, and according to a test I made, the season article can handle all of the content within the article. I wouldn't call Lorenzo a decent article. It's rather short, and the writing is not the best. In fact, one user voiced objection to the existence of the article. No information is lost in the event of a merge, as I indicated above, so there still is an overview on the storm. Furthermore, those 93 people would be automatically redirected to the season article section; surely if they were interested in one storm in 2001, maybe they would be interested in others, just by scrolling up or down. The harm in keeping it is the precedent it creates by forcing us to create an article on every storm, which is a habit I'd like for us to break. The focus on the smallest articles takes away from the bigger articles, after all (and please don't say "not necessarily", since we all know the project as a whole has a habit of putting more focus into the smaller articles, myself included). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, correct, the writing is not the best, and it is fairly short, but I would still call it "decent", compared to many of the articles that exist. However, when I look at that test you did, and how little prose there actually is, I wouldn't mind seeing the article merged. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is "decent", and if it affected land in the least, or had any other claim for notability, I might be OK with it staying. Would you be opposed if I reverted to my test and finish the merge? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong objections. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ormoc tragedy[edit]

The article concerns the same events as Tropical Storm Thelma. There is precedence to merge the disaster article to the storm article - The Mameyes disaster to Tropical Storm Isabel (1985). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it, FWIW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008)[edit]

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008) has a {{mergeto}} template on it. It points here, so I guess I'll kick off the discussion. As we saw from Tropical Depression Ten (2007), landfalling Atlantic tropical depressions can easily support articles, and I see no reason for this one to be different. It should be expanded, not merged. Plasticup T/C 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not merge, wie 16 fatalities is that system notable on its own. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just my personal opinion, but I'm in favor of merging until either the TCR comes out, or the article is significantly expanded. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The choices are expand or merge, not expand and merge. It won't expand if it is merged. Plasticup T/C 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that the article should be merged, and only re-created once expanded. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No merge. As usual with minor (weak/short lived) storms, I'll expand it :) I've just wrote the lead and I'll be working on the MH soon. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished expanding the MH. Only the preparations and impact need to be expanded now. Otherwise the article should hold on it's own :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand.... please... Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not good with impact and what not, but MH's and leads are what I'm good at :) hence why I make unnecessarily long MH's Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I archived this, as it has established notability, and the MH was sufficiently expanded. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPAC Fishspiners[edit]

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]

I have unmerged because we are in a era where every EPAC storm gets in article.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hernan (2008)[edit]

No need for such a stubby article on a storm that never touched land. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Merge Hold out on the merge for now. I'm currently working on rewriting the whole article. Wait until I've finished, then see if it still needs to be merged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. Fine with no merge for now. Don't forget to use TWO's and TWD's (both on here). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to move the article to a user sub page for now. I'm tired and I don't want to do a sloppy job on it. Sorry for delaying it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No MergeIt has not been edited since Labor Day, butI think we should all help Cyclonebiskit do the job.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article was re-published today. I don't know why it was made in the first place, but there has been some effort to keep it. However, I still see no need for the article. It caused no impact (the little that's mentioned in the article is unsourced). The first two paragraphs of the SH are decent (though the first one has no source for the met. history prior to it forming), so those paragraphs could be integrated into the season article section. However, the third paragraph is very poorly written. Example: At 2 PM the NHC upgraded it to an 85 mph hurricane! Any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong merge Poorly written, poorly formatted, no notability whatsoever. Merge and protect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been fixing it. Thats way There is a To do section on the page its says fix templates.--Yellow Evan (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a slightly bigger issue than the quality, in that the article is unneeded. As I said before, it caused no impact. More importantly though, the article is poorly written. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is stupid. There is no need for an East Pacific fishspinner. All EPac articles that do what Hernan did never get an article - so per my opinion: Merge to 2008 PHS.Mitch32(UP) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there is an article because it is a the strongest storm off the season thats why there is an article for Elida, too.

No need for it still. Elida is even worse.Mitch32(UP) 23:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because Elida is in the stages that Hernan which is in the stages that Hernan was once was.Hernan did go through major editing that can be traced as far as August 8 when i posted a message stated that it in NEEDS an article now.--Yellow Evan (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been fixed for the most part however I see a problem that is an image, should we use an image showing it under rapid intensification. mabey, if we solve this it could come a GA.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The page is still poorly written, for the section not written by Cyclonbiskit. I still propose this article be merged. It would make the section in the season article a bit long, but its section should be longest, since it was strongest storm of the season (so far). We don't really have a precedent for having these articles (EPAC storms that cause no impact), and I don't feel a need to start one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving it another shot to make the article worth keeping. Hopefully I can get it done tonight. I'm just confused as to why Yellow Evan keeps creating poor articles after seeing that most (if not all) of them are put up for merge... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is almost done, I've significantly expanded it so I don't think there is a need to merge it anymore. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge. it's unnecessary to make such an article on a powerful hurricane that never affected any land or caused any fatalities. Unless. Unless the article is expanded majorly, I'm considering it for a merge.--Renereynoso (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, it was re-created and kept. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Boris (1990)[edit]

No content outside of the main article. It doesn't even have a real infobox. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Copy and paste of the season article. Protect once your done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the article is merged (of which I have a split mind about it), protecting the article would be a very inappropriate of the protect privlege. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but we know that the article is going to be recreated by the user. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then use the edit button on the user's talk page, or nominate the article for deletion. Protection was not made for this purpose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fully Copy Paste article i tried to organize it, and thats how i start all my main articles same thing with 2008's Boris

  • Merge. This has marginally more than would fit in the season article but it does not look like significant information. — jdorje (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Otis (2005)[edit]

Otis is unneeded.

It is ok.

It has been redirected, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Norman (2000)[edit]

Perhaps this should eventually get an article. Should we keep it in its current state? It's so short (with so little outside of SH) that it could easily be merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to 2000 Pacific hurricane season without removing any content. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I merged it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been unmerged and expanded. Though still a terrible article, based on the amount of content there versus what can fit in the season article I'd say it can stay. However I'd put the onus on the writers to make the article not suck and justify the split. — jdorje (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really thnk that he (Yellow Evan) copied some of the info from my norman sandbox that I changed later. For example his article has the same starting sentence!

--Rose09 Rashmi Next 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nearing terrible. It's short, mostly unreferenced, and poorly written. We've merged it several times, only to have it unmerged by its creator. Thoughts? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i do not see one speling mistake.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to being well-written then just being spelled correctly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I merged it again. The article was just a split from the main article, with some ill-formatted additions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was recreated, and now it is a GA. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Kirsten (1966)[edit]

The season article is pretty skin-and-bones, and I think all of the content here could fit there. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink this just made it on the did you know area?Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it would if we merge.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I made this article, I agree with it being merged, the reason is because, although the storm was the most damaging of the season, I didn't do much else, there is no info, I hoped this would make it without being merged, but now seeing the article in another way, I agree, merge. --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you believed the article should be merged for lack of information, why did you create it? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was so short back the, I do season articles because I only need a brief description of the storm, I can't write much about a storm 62 years ago without a lot of sources, by the way I don't mean to be rude, but if no one objects, I will merge this myself. --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 19:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object. It would make the season article way too long for a section so knew and for its time period. 'Strong KEEP' Leave Message orYellow Evan home 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too even though I made this, I think that this should be merged.

--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Max (2005)[edit]

None of them are needed, and none of them are any good. Hurricane Max (2005), for example, is not at all needed; it is extremely short, and the overall writing is poor. As such, it should stay merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max is notable for merging with Linda. Yellow Evan (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max isn't that notable for absorbing Linda, and even if it was, you cannot have an article that short and stubby. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was ultimately merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Odile (2008)[edit]

Little content outside of the season article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a merge would be nice. 24.222.147.93 (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst article I have seen in a while, no offense to the creator, but this is useless, maybe after the TCR is out, but not now --Kirk76 1966 Pacific Hurricane Season 01:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the minute Merge but if more infomation can be added within the next 24 hours then maybe it should be made. Jason Rees (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merged. Anyone can recreate the article at any time, as long as there is sufficient information. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerged. I will add more info. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-create articles without discussion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton, the article is here for a reason. This is not how we do articles for every storm which I am trying to do. I will work on it this evening. Thats why i put the update template on. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Evan is doing what I was planning on doing once the season was over, writing articles for every storm of the season, like in the Atlantic. But, he's been going against merges and recommendations to not create certain articles at that time. A perfect and relevant example is the odile article. It was merged per consensus but he's just un-merged it without even expanding it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He re-created it hours ago, stating that he'll work on it. As it hasn't been done, should it be merged, again? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have been working on it. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 02:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I agree. a main article would be Great! Unfortunately, i only have a couple of sentences of information.--Renereynoso (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It remained merged, and that is the consensus for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Elida (1996)[edit]

It appears the creator of the article has just reverting my merging of the article. It's a copy and paste of the season article, primarily. Need I say more? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Seventeen-E (2008)[edit]

This article is completely unneeded. The author refuses to listen to comments and suggestions of everyone (even when he solicits them) by creating lots of articles of extremely poor quality. Potapych (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are doing articles for every storm. Atleaste let it stay because I do not want to confuse Keith Ediks Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in really quickly - the storm is not forecast to impact land, so I strongly suggest the article be merged until, at the very least until after it dissipates, or, if it's even needed, then after the season is over. I don't know where this business arose that we are doing articles for every storm. IIRC, the consensus was to allow any storm to have an article, but that's contingent on information and being well-written. This article has neither. Yellow Evan, please don't be so quick to make new articles; there are enough articles you have made that still need to be cleaned up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Karina[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are now putting Odille to merge so know I will put this to merge. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 22:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Talk:Tropical Storm Karina (2008) and Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)'s talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging[edit]

Should't this page be merged with WP:WPTC. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day

No, not at all. We have a separate page to have the merge proposals/discussions here. The WPTC main page is for project-wide discussion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as is. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikProject Tropical cylcones/Merging. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 13:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that makes no sense. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This as a talk page. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still have no idea what you're saying. Please say what you want to do, in clear and cohesive language. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be a talk page. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as it is, no reason to change it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just game up with a good idea. 17:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1959 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

The article is fairly minimal. There's little info on most of the storms. Alternatively, we could try and decide what to do with the early EPAC seasons. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand In my opinion there is no need to merge; it should be easy to expand. The season was very notable (Dot made a Hawaiian landfall and the 1959 cane is the deadliest Pacific storm of all time). Some of the early EPAC season articles are good. The 1976 Pacific hurricane season is probably the best article. The section of Kathleen and Liza may need to be expanded, then we would have a great article. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

  • Keep and expand - we have dozens of season articles with even less text than this article. Hurricane seasons are notable, so it deserves to be kept, but it does need expansion badly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you've noticed, we removed some of those season articles that had less text (WPAC seasons). There is the 1950-1959 decade article it would be merged with. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge until someone finds sources. That region was poorly monitored before the satellite era. Potapych (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has come up, can we just merge most of the 60's in the WPac into a bigger article?--Irmela08 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hector (2006)[edit]

This is a copy and paste of the TCR ( I checked!) --क्षेम्य Tranquility 20:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason in itself to merge, as the TCR is in the PD. Granted, it's a pretty poor article, so I wouldn't be opposed to merging it until somebody rewrites it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, it was re-written, and so now it stays. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1842 Spain hurricane[edit]

The result of the proposal was to merge ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's blatantly short. More importantly, perhaps, is that the "hurricane" is only known because of one academic paper. Per WP:N, articles should have multiple sources, indeed it should have significant sources. I just did a Google search, and outside of this paper, I couldn't find any info on the storm. Also, I should note that there is no definitive proof the storm existed. It is surmised, based on meteorological observations, that it was a storm, but there isn't any definitive proof. It's short enough for it to be merged to the decadal season article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge on the condition that all of the content is indeed merged somewhere else. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'll have to agree with Julian on this one. Merge endorsed. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Snowball merge :P Cyclonebiskit 14:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid decision to merge this one. This hurricane was a rare phenomenon, just like the 1858 San Diego hurricane (an article, that is also based on a single scientific publications—so much for that argument). Also, that Vaquero et al. (2008) paper has been cited three times as of now (don't forget it is barely a year old), and no one disputed the existence of this hurricane. So much for User:Hurricanehink's claim that "there is no definitive proof the storm existed", because as a matter of fact, there isn't even a claim that this hurricane did not exist. Therefore, I propose to restore this article. --bender235 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains is that it's still based on one single paper. You said it's barely a year old, so there hasn't been much time to dispute the evidence. If it starts to be a well-known part of Atlantic hurricane climatology, then I'd understand a little more. Right now, the content in the season article should be sufficient, since there's nothing beyond the copyrighted paper. As for 1858 San Diego hurricane, I think a merging would be a good idea, and not just because it's related to the Spain hurricane. There's little chance for significant expansion for the San Diego - it's just too old for there to be significant info. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the 1842 Spain hurricane and the 1858 San Diego hurricane were once-in-a-century phenomena (just like the Grote Mandrenke, or the London Tornado of 1091—also stubs, but definitely important ones), so I strongly advocate to keep/restore these articles. --bender235 (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true they're important, but it doesn't seem like either are vital to hurricane climatology, at least vital enough to have articles which consist only of the original document. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, since—like I said—we're talking about once-in-a-century phenomena. --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the article stays it needs a lot more information.--Irdicent 23 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much more information available at this point. Remember, this hurricane has been "discovered" merely a year ago. --bender235 (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so short and can't be improved, I see no reason why it shouldn't be merged.----Irdicent 23 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: when it was proposed for merger last time, 3 people agreed with the decision to merge. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Since their seems to be no other sources Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lane (2000)[edit]

The result of the proposal was to merge Cyclonebiskit 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was unmerged, and then unimproved. It could easily fit into a season article so at least one thing gets improvement. Potapych (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and merged it in its entirety. No need to keep an article around like that, if no intended to improve it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane One (1851)[edit]

Recently created. Not sure if we would want it for historical reasons or not, but it is only a copy of the season article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge, unless more information can be found on it, it's best to merge since it's just a copy of the season article and has false information. Cyclonebiskit 17:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used all of the info from HURDAT, which in turn used most available sources anywhere. It didn't affect too populated of an area (Texas had only been a state for 6 years at the time of the hurricane). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Erick (2007)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was promoted to FA; merge discussion moot. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While well-written, the article is rather short. The article could be merged quite easily into the season article, as I tested here; it is just barely longer than the infobox. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead an merge. It was simply an experiment to see what Tito thought. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you merge it, you would make the article heavy towards Erick; that section would be larger than Henriette, a landfalling storm. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's only because the entire season article hasn't been developed. If you compare it to 1998 Pacific hurricane season, you'd see that most storm sections are about that length. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh, seeing as it's on FAC for the second time, I'd be OK keeping it, given how many other articles we have on such non-important storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article , its longer than Hernan.--Yellow Evan (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Boris (2008)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Consensus Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure if you ever read what people are saying, but can you please TRY to understand that when we give a recommendations it's best you follow them. We said not to make this article, yet you did. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't really "make" this article. It is expanded from the season page by two sentences. I am redirecting this back to 2008_Pacific_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Boris. Plasticup T/C 15:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No more merge (little late) since the article has improved to C-class. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tropical Storm Lowell (2008)[edit]

The result of the proposal was expanded –Juliancolton | Talk 03:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I am not a fan of merging but when I try to expand the page for Lowell it keeps getting reverted. We should merge untill the NHC finishes the TCR (the NHC is doing and the land impacting storms first).--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is letting me add anything.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article through at least thursday. I have a five day weekend this weekend. I'll see what I can do to get this article up and running. :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Little content and little notability. —Alastor Moody 08:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but if Cyclonebiskit plans on working on it, it's worth keeping for a few more days. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No merge, its impacts were significant inland. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Things might be a bit slow because I'm going to be busy this afternoon through tomorrow afternoon. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be crazy to merge this article, look at Tropical Storm Marco, it has little almost no information yet the merge was revocated. In turn, I have discontinued the merge on this article. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Marco was shorter lived than Lowell. It even has longer storm history. Strong merge.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan, do not merge an article unless it is a definite merge. As I said before, I would work on it, but I'm a bit behind schedule. Be patient and wait for others to determine whether or not to merge it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Merge - This should be rather easy to expand. Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it now, just getting the pre-depression information before I start. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished it.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hernan (1996)[edit]

The result of the proposal was expanded –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hernan. A copy and paste of the season article, albeit with a brand-new one-sentence lead. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let it stay.--Yellow Evan (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. — jdorje (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some filler information was lost in the merge, specifically the lack-of-preparations information and the forecasting-error information. — jdorje (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central America Hurricane of 1941[edit]

The result of the proposal was merged ----Irdicent 23 23:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another old article that no one has touched. Small impact, and while it's viewed slightly more often than the last one, it is still very short, and it could fit in its entirety in the season article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge since I can't imagine there's much more info, and the content could be easily merged into the season article. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged ----Irdicent 23 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Emilia (1988)[edit]

Fails WP:N, as there are most definitely not a significant number of sources on the system. It didn't affect land, so I could find no mention of the storm in any newspaper articles, unlike more recent fish storms. As met. histories aren't sufficient material to justify an article's existence, and as the section in the season article could handle more info, I propose a merge. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes WP:N. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does it pass WP:N? I already said there were no newspaper articles on the storm, and there are no other Google hits for this storm other than the NHC report, the MWR, and discussions, which is the same for every storm. As notability is not inherited for tropical cyclones, especially for ones which have no info outside of what is the baseline for info for all storms, there is no reason to keep the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because every named storm is inherently notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, they aren't. Notability is not inherited for anything on Wikipedia. Please avoid your typical kneejerk reactions and actually think about the article, of why it is notable. It didn't affect anyone, and no one wrote on it other than people who had to. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're missing the point. Notability isn't inherited, which means if I were the son of George Bush, I wouldn't be automatically notable. Entire subjects, however, such as towns, roads, certain television episodes, and named tropical cyclones are notable. Stop taking policy out of context. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, towns are notable because people live in them. As for any of the other you mentioned, you can't say all of them are notable. There's still a huge debate over whether TV episodes should get articles. You've seen the discussions about roads. There's no reason to say that all tropical cyclones are notable, and especially that all storms are notable enough for an article. How am I taking policy out of context, when WP:N clearly says that significant sources are needed? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, and United States Government seems like a fairly significant source to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Except its not independent of the NHC Jason Rees (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The NHC is the U.S. Government. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • WP:N says to atain notablity sources have to be "Independent of the subject" whcih excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. So that means the US Goverment is not Independent and thus the article should be merged Jason Rees (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I disagree; the NHC didn't make the storm, it simply tracked it. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • But the NHC initiated advisories on it, which is close to making a storm as they get. If the same storm wasn't named or warned on, it would certainly not be notable enough for an article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Not notable. NHC Discussions shouldn't be used that way because they make the facts unreliable. Potapych (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Since it doesnt have Significant coverage in newspapers or other media outisde NASA NHC or anyother forecasting agency. Which means it fails WP:N in my opinon Jason Rees (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per JC. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
  • Yellowevan Why would you want to keep an article that fails WP:N Jason Rees (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Juliancolton. The hurricane didn't self-publish. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but the only sources anywhere on the storm stem directly from the National Hurricane Center. As there are no independent, reliable sources of info on the storm, other than the NHC, the storm does not pass WP:N. I'll repeat what I said to JC - if the storm wasn't named or warned on, it would certainly not be notable enough for an article. If Katrina was not warned on, it'd still be just as notable. Notability is not inherited. The storm didn't do anything or affect anyone. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JC totally. Emilla was warned on. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
Lots of storms are warned on. Emilia was a short-lived, boring tropical storm that didn't affect anyone, and nobody cares enough about it to have a newspaper article or research paper on it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the WPTC straw poll indicated that most people do not think that all storms in this time period should get articles. For those who voted keep, does that affect your opinion of Emilia? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging/Archive_3&oldid=1079097756"