This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
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!
Hurricanehink04:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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.)
Jdorje09:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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. --
Infrogmation15:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
PenguinCDF21:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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...
CrazyC8319:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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?
Hurricanehink15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)reply
You answered your own question. The reason is that it is from this year, and there is therefore more information available on the storm.
Jdorje23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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 - archive04:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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 C11:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 - archive00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
Jdorje00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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 bySilence Knight (
talk •
contribs) .
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 dropsonde08:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
<$100 Million and <5 deaths = no article? Then Merge Ophelia as well.
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 dropsonde08:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
86.141.84.11211:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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...
Hopquick17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)reply
"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.
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.
PenguinCDF20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Agreed. For a US storm, $320M is certainly not worthy of retirement. Besides, after Katrina, it is almost forgotten now...
CrazyC8306:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
PenguinCDF01:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
A very well written article - I find no issues that need to be corrected. Due to this, I am passing the article to GA status. Congrats!
Dana boomer (
talk)
18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Cindy (2005)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following
several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 15:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 18:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on
Hurricane Cindy (2005). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Hurricane Cindy (2005). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
The tornado outbreak article is start-class and isn't terribly long. I propose merging the tornado outbreak article into this article, and have the chart be collapsible. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
14:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply