Talk:Hurricane Kristy (2024)

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge to 2024 Pacific hurricane season

I don't really see a reason this article needs to exist, especially since this storm is completely out to sea. The only notable thing here is that the storm was unusually late for a category 5 storm, but this could easily be summed up in the season article, and the article is rather short. I do apologize if i'm not doing this correctly as this is my first time starting a merge discussion like this. Sria-72 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support A recent discussion on the article's project's talk page shows that being a Category 5 Pacific hurricane does not establish notability. The article is short anyway and I don't see how it would benefit being an article. _ZZ^Z 'S 15:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support EPAC is the only basin with Category 5 being the only necessary notable feature for a storm to be nominated for an article. Considering EPAC is active enough, I would say no to individual articles. 2003 LN 6 16:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per @Zzzs, the storm itself hasn’t been notable in anyway destruction wise, and the only thing that could give it notability is it being a Category 5 in mid-October, but the discussion, mentioned above, proves that this doesn’t warrant an article. Insendieum ✉️ 16:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The contents of this article can easily fit within the season article, and in fact, all the information in this article is already in the season article. Also, this system remained at sea for its entire life, with no land interaction, and had a fairly routine meteorological history, even given the post eyewall replacement cycle re-intensification that briefly pushed it to Cat-5. For a "fish storm" like Kristy, the best way to tell readers about it is through a well-written section in the season article. Drdpw (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Why can’t we just work on extending it? And besides, it was a Cat 5 WITHOUT EL NIÑO, the last since Celia in 2010. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 16:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is why I declined the draft before someone moved it into mainspace without any discussion, I'll bring it up on their talk page. Sir MemeGod  16:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem inappropriate for one reviewer to over rule another simply because they don't like the review decision, in this instance: "The draft should be published as we do need an article on Kristy like all other Category 5 Pacific hurricanes." Drdpw (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support agree with @Sir MemeGod. There really was no reason for it to be moved; I was working on it when it suddenly got moved to mainspace. I felt relieved, but after you said something; I realized that it should NOT have been an article. The “without el Niño” thing might be of importance, but otherwise; I agree. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 16:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per @Drdpw in his statement and response to Sir MemeGod. The draft shouldn't have been moved in the first place. Shmego (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]