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.
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.
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 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. 2003LN616:16, 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]
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. SirMemeGod16:50, 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]
You seem to be the only guy here who supports C5 Pacific hurricane articles, almost everyone agrees it's not notable enough if they didn't affect land or didn't have any significant records, Just give up man, you'll still lose anyways. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given that this entire page could be merged or even just redirected (with the exception of maybe one or two sentences not mentioned in the 2024 season section per WP:NOPAGE. The only coverage of Kristy is routine and therefore doesn't establish notability for this storm at all. Noting that every Category 5 hurricane doesn't have an article despite its strength (Hurricane Patsy (1959) is one – which kind of relates to Kristy here with no land interaction even though it reached Category 5 status). ~ TailsWx18:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is very short, and Kristy never threatened or affected any land at all. However, it was still notable for being the first Cat 5 EPAC hurricane in a non-El Niño year in 14 years. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a clear consensus in favour of this article being merged and the opposing voters' rationalia being addressed without counterarguments. Should this merge discussion be closed early because of my reason? ZZZ'S02:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just give the conversation a little bit more time before closing, we don't need to rush a merge. That being said I still support this proposal per my previous reasoning on the 2024PHS and WPTC talk pages. JayTee⛈️ 02:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, as per WP:NACINV, editors who are involved in a discussion should not close it. It hasn't been even 12 hours since this merge discussion was opened, either; I'd say to leave this open for a bit longer. ~ TailsWx02:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support despite Kristy's remarkable intensity this late into a neutral ENSO season, its lack of impacts and therefore minimal news coverage means it is more appropriate to merge. ArkHyena (it/its) 02:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support since yes, the hurricane was the first Category 5 in a year unfavorable for general tropical cyclone development in the east Pacific since 2010, but there is nothing other than that which can generate notability, namely its duration, where it impacted, and total damage and casualties. HarukaAmaranth08:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category 5 in and of itself does not confer notability, and the storm's coverage in sources hasn't been anything except routine. Noah, BSBATalk10:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since Hurricane Celia of 2010 has an article, and didn't cause impacts, much like Kristy, I'd say the merge is unnecessary, since much other Category 5 Pacific hurricanes caused Minimal to No impact on land and still have their own article, for example, Hurricane Elida of 2002.Accordthemusician (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting here that I did find several sources of Kristy's impacts or "warnings" in southwestern Mexico (not directly), including Infobae (1), Infobae (2), El Diario, and El Informador. However, this information alone will not illustrate much or are not significant enough for Kristy to merit notability, nor is enough for this to remain as a stand-alone article, either. ~ TailsWx12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, these appear to be cautionary forecast statements rather than advisories about actual weather affecting the region. Drdpw (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as for now, Kristy is likely to be unnotable. However, should the track data be fixed. (Despite the NHC outlooks stating that Nadine indirectly helped in Kristy's formation, the NHC BT claims that Nadine and Kristy are the same system) Tavantius (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2024 (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.
