Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:27, 3 August 2009 [1].
| Toolbox |
|---|
I wrote this article a year ago, and it was quickly promoted to featured status; however, I'm now convinced it is an unnecessary content fork of Tropical Storm Allison. Pending the outcome of this discussion, I will either initiate a discussion to merge, or summarily preform the merge per WP:BOLD. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say merge. Eubulides (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your inclusion of {{featured article review|Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1}} at Talk:Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison doesn't make adequately clear what you're considering. A simple "new section" at the bottom might be better. Having said that, I can't see that anyone's likely to object. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review period is not relevant here so people can imagine that they're in the FARC stage already YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a merge would be good if the Nom wants it.Jason Rees (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I think the nominator is correct. The article is one of the 100 shortest FAs, and Tropical Storm Allison is just about average. Merging them wouldn't create any size issues and seems appropriate. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, then merge. Per nom. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per nom. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright then, I'm ready go to ahead and merge as soon as this is closed. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.