Talk:Hurricane Cindy (1999)

Merge

Little to no impact, no fatalities from the storm, and no damages mean that the article is going up for discussion to be merged. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk)

There's more than enough info to support this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but there was little to no impact, no fatalities, and no damage from the storm. Does it really, truly, need an article? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary? No, it's not. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with this merge discussion, but I think we would either have to lose some of the information on this article to fit of the 1999 AHS page. Why? Because it would look uncomfortably long on the 1999 AHS article, like after Danny of 2009 was briefly merged.--12george1 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, not everything would be included. This article is just a glorified met. history, so the extraneous details would be cut. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with merge, the article is not very well written (only start class). Anyway, I agree if the vital information won't be lost in the process and you can cut off the excess stuff. In addition, the section on Cindy on the 1999 AHS article is a bit lacking, with even TS Emily having a longer section. --12george1 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that there are four people supporting merge (TA13, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, and me), so whose gonna do it?--12george1 (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge finished. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What? Cyclonebiskit did not by any means support merging... I don't know where y'all got that one from. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't opposed to it, and there wasn't anything other than met. history. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"There's more than enough info to support this article." Am I going insane? Cucurbitaceae (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you're likely not going insane. But, there is this thing called an IRC channel where they talk. They can discuss it, and probably did. Even if Cyclone did not want the article to be merged, there was a consensus for merging it, so his "wish" as you could say, was overpowered. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IRC channel wasn't used for this. Decisions aren't made on IRC. However, the content that was here was bloated. When I merged it, nothing significant was lost. That is the main reason it was merged. It just wasn't a significant storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

...alright, but don't completely make up something and attribute it to someone who clearly didn't say anything of the sort. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the article was supposed to be merged, then why hasn't anyone done it yet? It's been a month.--Ryder Busby (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I confess. I was the one who misinterpreted Cyclonebiskit's opinion on whether or not this article should be merged. When he said "Is it necessary? No, it's not", I thought he meant that this article is unnecessary. Even if I would have judged him against the merge, it was still 3-1. Anyway, I sincerely apologize to all of you, for all of the wasted time arguing about this here and there.--12george1 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article be merged. Other than becoming a major hurricane it had little to no impact on land. It fails notability. This must be merged immediately.Jeffrey Gu (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I merged it, people, so do not worry about it anymore.Jeffrey Gu (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it was merged not deleted. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)