Talk:Hurricane Cindy (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 10, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

1 No More Subpages
- 1.1 Tornado
2 Internal Sources
3 Todo

[edit] No More Subpages

NO NO NO NO! Why in God's name are we creating subpages! This is a NON-NOTABLE storm. This is ridiculous. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. This, Arlene, and many of the other storms could simple be condensed on the main article. Who cares about the loss of information? This is an encyclopedia, not a weather encyclopedia but just an encyclopedia. I understand that it is fairly current so there would be more interest in it, but 1995 should be used as a guide to keep 2005 season shorter than necessary, if that is the reasoning behind this page. If that isn't the reason, I don't know what is. We don't need an article on every last storm! Hurricanehink 04:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As non-notable as this storm was, it's a lot more worthy of an article than Hurricane Faith and many other older non-retired storms we have articles for. (Not that I want to get into an argument about notability, since my own criteria is article quality.) Jdorje 09:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Faith was very historically notable though, like Vince and Alberto (2000) were. CrazyC83 19:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

YES YES YES YES! This is a NOTABLE storm. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.

*ahem* now that I've countered your argument point-by-point :-) note that debate on keep/delete/merge is on the WP:VFD subpage listed at the top of the article. I created this article as part of a gradual project of improving the New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina related coverage, and IMO an article on Cindy is an important part of it. The effects in the New Orleans area alone are important background for understanding events and actions of hundreds of thousands of people and historic incidents which have recieved international attention. (This article already has more information not duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia than, say, the 17th Street Canal article.) BTW, I've observed with interest that many people in the New Orleans area are under the mistaken impression that Cindy actually was a hurricane, and refer to the storm that way. Hm, I think I'll add that last tidbit to the article. -- Infrogmation 15:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Cindy was a notable storm, but very much overshadowed by the many monsters that followed. This storm caused some significant damage (though not totally severe), flooding in many areas around here (I live in southeast Louisiana), hit New Orleans directly, and was still fresh on everyone's minds as Katrina approached (the mess left by Cindy was still mentioned as late as a week before Katrina annihilated my area). This storm should have an article... heck, if I had more time, I was planning on creating this article myself! We just need to put in a bit more research on how extensive its impact was... Now an article on Arlene, which I noticed was recently deleted... now that was not notable at all... Cindy was notable... Keep the article. Hey, if we can have an article on Tropical Storm Odette (2003), I think an article on a much more notable storm like this is warranted. PenguinCDF 21:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge back. Odette was in December, outside of hurricane season! That is what made Odette highly notable. Also that caused considerably more damage than Cindy did considering its area affected. Like Arlene, this storm did NOT have the damage of Ophelia (nowhere near the $800M estimated), the death toll of Alpha (nowhere near 26) or the notability of Vince (it was in an area where such storms were common). Cindy did little to create the Katrina disaster... CrazyC83 19:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed for merge. The storm is not notable. Some damage and flooding occurrs in any landfalling tropical cyclone. Why doesn't Barry in 2001 have its own article, which caused 2 direct deaths and 7 indirects, with $30 million in damage? What about Hanna in 2002 which killed3 and caused $20 million in damage? How about Erin in 1995? The reason that there are no articles is because they are not notable. How is this storm any different, except for the fact is from this year? Hurricanehink 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You answered your own question. The reason is that it is from this year, and there is therefore more information available on the storm. Jdorje 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Erin likely would have had an article had it formed today, due to the greater amount of information available... CrazyC83 16:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean it only caused 3 deaths and it didn't cause that much damage. Hell it wasn't even a hurricane.--24.83.117.65 20:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have merged it, but someone put it up for a vfd. It is now not in good faith for me to do that.-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous. Using the same logic, let's go through and delete articles on Governors of Maryland and merge them into one large page since a lot of them weren't *cough* "notable". That doesn't make sense, and neither does this. Let it go. --tomf688^{talk} 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You give one kid a piece of candy then every kid wants a piece of candy and then you've got a big damn problem. You do it for one no notable storm, then you have to do it for the others. BAAAD! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Isnt the point of wikipedia to have as much information as possible? and there is a lot more information in this article than the season article. Obviously there would be no point making articles on some hurricanes, like Nate, but if someone did make one on Nate then, as long as it has more info than the season page, keep it! Jamie C 11:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly...the point of wikipedia as I see it, is that more author/editors can produce more information, making it the most comprehensive collection of knowledge ever.

Wikipeda is not an indescriminate collection of information. You can't just put in whatever information you want. What does this article have to offer that the main one doesn't? Longer sentences that describe the same exact event with little additional info. ...Aside from Joey's grandma's cat getting trapped in a tree by floodwaters. Redundancy gets you nowhere. And little tedious facts are not helpful. If a student wouldn't find it useful in a thorough college paper, it shouldn't be here. There are tons and tons of storms like this that don't have articles and if we created ones for them all (they surely number over 100), Wikipedia would be an indescrimiante collection of information, which is against Wikipedia policy. I don't see how it could be any clearer than that. If you have a problem with merging this one, you have a problem with Wikipedia policy. Go whine there. Sorry I'm being gruff but this is getting ridiculous. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To make a compromise, I think that if the TCR says it's a hurricane, we keep the separate article. If it stays a tropical storm, merge it. Fair enough?Icelandic Hurricane 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would it matter whether it was 75 mph or only 70 mph? This does not affect the notability of the storm or the quality of the article. Jdorje 00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did someone put the merge tag back on if it says the result of the discussion was to keep? Its really just the same result. Good kitty 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tornado

Keep it, the storm was big news in Georgia where there was a tornado at the Atlanta Motor Speedway. Also that one tornado was estimated to have done at least $40 million worth or damage. Also, why isn't that in the damages section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silence Knight (talk • contribs) .

Source? Jdorje 06:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Atlanta Motor Speedway page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Motor_Speedway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silence Knight (talk • contribs) .

Hah hah. And their source? Jdorje 06:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I live in Atlanta and it barely made the front page of the AJC if it did at all, I remember seeing it. No offense, but $40 million is pretty pitiful for storms nowadays. It needs to have caused at least $100 million in damage and at least 5 deaths for me to even consider agreeing to it. Cindy had her 15 minutes of localized fame. This storm wasn't notable...period. Let it go. Merge. -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 08:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<$100 Million and <5 deaths = no article? Then Merge Ophelia as well.

You'd better get Epsilon and Zeta and Vince first. Jdorje 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources seem to be fairly easy to google up: http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/3744894 for example. --AySz88^-^ 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not makes little difference. 3 deaths and $40 million in damage for a modern storm is NOT NOTABLE enough. What part of that fails to get through? It deserves it's nice big office on the main page, not a whole building/subpage. -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 08:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, Eric the $40 million figure is the damage from that tornado in Atlanta, not TS Cindy itself. Irrespective of whether this article should remain in the long term or not; now it exists it should stay until after the TCR is published and there is actual information on the damage and other issues like if it was a hurricane. And having a hard limit in damage and fatalities before considering a storm notable is a mistake; what if a tropical storm caused next to no damage and claimed one victim - George W. Bush?. In any case if this article is to be merged, it should be merged with List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms not the season article. -- 86.141.84.112 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So update the article already with the information about the tornado. Just make sure to include sources. Jdorje 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal Sources

I removed the line that said internal sources suggest... because the link given as a citation no longer has information relevant to Cindy... In fact it talks about Epsilon. Please replace this sentence when appopriate. Perhaps it was a bit redundant with the sentence before it as well... Hopquick 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Internal sources suggest that it was indeed a hurricane. [1]"

The "internal sources" quoted is actually that picture of the board with the list of storms, where it lists Cindy as 75 mph. I agree it shouldn't be mentioned until the TCR comes out, though.

--AySz88^-^ 20:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

It says 320M dollars in damage-gonna add that?HurricaneCraze32 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... caused almost 5 times the damage of Ophelia ($320 million for Cindy vs. $70 million for Ophelia). Looks like Ophelia will definitely not be retired... Cindy has a better chance now, and it's highly unlikely to be retired. PenguinCDF 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For a US storm, $320M is certainly not worthy of retirement. Besides, after Katrina, it is almost forgotten now... CrazyC83 06:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say totally forgotten... I live in southeast Louisiana. I went through both Cindy and Katrina, as well as the edge of Rita. We still refer to Cindy as quite a bad storm. It's definitely notable, just not notorious. PenguinCDF 01:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)