Talk:Typhoon Meranti (2004)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTyphoon Meranti (2004) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2009Good article nomineeListed
August 13, 2023Articles for deletionMerged
Current status: Delisted good article

Merge?[edit]

This storm didn't affect anyone :/ We don't do these sorts of articles anymore. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (2nd)[edit]

This storm didn't cause any impacts, @Cyclonebiskit and Juliancolton: pinging the main editors of the article. --219.78.191.189 (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge this page into 2004 Pacific typhoon season; doesn't meet current criteria for stand-alone page; current target already has a section duplicating the current text. Klbrain (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This storm didn't affect anyone. Also, this storm didn't cause any impacts. So I suggest to merge. 126.255.254.199 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I merged it. 126.237.93.109 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The merge has been reverted. I suggest you give the editors a chance to have their say. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply for M.Bitton) OK, I understood. However, I have sought out opinions from others from the beginning. I think it is need to prove the need to leave an article for Typhoon Meranti in 2004. 126.161.75.79 (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that this article has been selected as a good article and should be kept? However, this article was selected as a good article in 2009 (more than 10 years ago), and it is highly likely that the situation has changed. Should I reassessment of good article first? 126.161.75.79 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which situation you're referring to (expecting it to have changed), given that the article is about a past event. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, as readers are not served by the consolidation; the existing article is supported by references; it is the case that typhoons of the period retain article elsewhere - see Category:Tropical cyclones in 2004. Klbrain (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a good-quality article, detailed, and provides more information than the section in the article could give. There's no reason to merge it. SolarisPenguin (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as it does not follow WP:NWX guidelines. The season page has had the same text in the storm's own section since this edit. luis 💬 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – As the creator of this article, I don't believe its existence is warranted anymore. It doesn't meet our current notability guidelines for tropical cyclone sub-articles. The information can be easily condensed and merged into the main article with little to no lost content. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per merge arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.