Talk:Hurricane Janice (1958)

Merge
Given the information, or lack thereof, I propose this be merged, mostly on the lack of notability. Hurricanehink 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * debateable-Well, given that the technology to report on these storms are so primitive back then (there were no satellites, instant text messageing, internet or the Weather Channel back in 1958) this is debateable. Storm05 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it debatable then?! The storm wasn't notable, agreed? There was little information on it, agreed? What is the point of having this article? I am very sorry that so many of your articles have been merged, but they have all been for storms like this; few deaths, low damage, and/or little information. If you can tell me why this storm should have an article, and that the information should not be added to the seasonal article, I might change my mind, but this storm was not notable, and should never have an article. Lots of storms caused around 1 million in damage, or killed 1 person, and even caused 20 inches of rain, sometimes as a tropical storm. You should be spending more time improving already existing articles than adding more low-quality articles, or else all your hard work will be for naught. I can tell you put a lot of times into these articles, but why spend that time when it will likely be merged? Hurricanehink 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC
 * Well, at least this article is at start class.Storm05 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This storm was not in any way notable. The most notable part of the storm is that they thought it killed some people, but later they found out it didn't. merge. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmmm, it has a lot of info, so I say keep-p-p-p E-Series 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't, it has next to no info! This storm isn't notable, merge it. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. I'll get my axe out. Hurricanehink 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)