Talk:Tropical Storm Beatriz (1993)

Todo

Expand MH, and watches/warnings needed. Also, more impact is needed. and info from IDD required. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Actually, given the uncertainty over the damages (over how much of it was actually from Beatriz), I think we should consider the best way to present the information, in conjunction with Tropical Storm Arlene (1993). One thought that came to mind - June 1993 Mexico floods? Both storms affected the country, and there was significant flooding. I also find it odd there is no HPC report. Dartmouth attributes the flood to Arlene, and EM-DAT attributes the $1.884 billion from both storms. It is OR to say it was solely from Beatriz. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Arlene did other impact as a TC, why not merge it into Arlene's article? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Arlene did impact Mexico before Beatriz did, but it wasn't a TC when it did. I wouldn't say Beatriz's six deaths on its own is enough for an article, but I also don't think it should be merged into Arlene's article, since they both were responsible for the flooding disaster. Hence why I think it should be a flood article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel, even ignoring the damage total, Beatirz has enough notability for an article, but I have length concerns. In addition, I've been under the impression that Arlene did more than Beatriz. I don't we should keep both Beatriz and Arlene and make a flood article as that would seem redundant and pointless. I feel that merge with Arlene or move to 1993 Mexico floods should work. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did Beatriz do outside of the combined flood impact and the six deaths? Arlene did a decent amount of impact in Texas, so that, IMO, would be the focus of the Arlene article, if we did the proposed combined flood article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were both tropical cyclones, we can do a combined article for Beatriz and Arlene, sorta like you proposed on IRC a while back with Jova and Irwin since both were tropical cyclones, but I am unsure on whether that meets WP:NOT. If this gets moved to a flood article, I also suggest that when and if 1993 PHS and AHS get put up for GT's, that this article is included. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They should both should be part of their topics, yes, if there was one flood article. However, I feel Arlene has enough on its own with its Texas impact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we do a combined article, Arlene's Texas impact would be included. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary though. Arlene hit the US, so there is a significant amount of info on it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gu (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about merging this article, we are talking about moving it. May I remind you of WP:CIVIL. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Mexican flood article would be that it would have to be expanded and require some research. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any more thoughts? This article is still in pretty mediocre shape. IMO, the best solution would be to have a flood article for Mexico, and then have Arlene have an article that focuses on its impact as a tropical cyclone (in Texas). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

No consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This storm isn't really notable... plenty of storms with six deaths don't have articles. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge Though it caused 6 fatalities, there is limited sourcing and the impact information is very limited. Seems like there isn't lots of info about this storm, so therefore merge it with the season article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Support merge When this article's creation was discussed in 2011, the main problem since the beginning is there are very few reports and information exists or remains about the storm. This is why there is so much trouble about finding the information of this storm. As such, this fails WP:GNG. Merge to the season article. SMB9 9thx my edits 12:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a semi-credible claim that this caused $1.5 billion (which apparently is no longer explicitly in the article) in damages that I've never really traced down why it happened. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yellow Evan: I seriously doubt it. 1.5 billion in 1993 would cause a big and powerful storm to inflict, especially in Mexico. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's somewhat plausible in theory, given the damage flooding can create even if the storm is weak. Until someone plans on doing 1993 PHS, I don't see any upside to a merger. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cyclonebiskit removed that claim as the source was questionable last year. Java Hurricane 05:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is EMDAT questionable now? IIRC that's the original source. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It wasn't EMDAT, it was Earth Policy Institute. It provided no information to corroborate the given total so it can't be considered reliable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – with the speculated damage total above, it looks like this article could be expanded into something that meets notability requirements if we can find reliable sources. This is potentially just a neglected article that requires some attention. I would hold off doing anything for now, try to improve the article first and come back to this discussion and see where we stand after that. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold per Buttons0603. SMB9 9thx my edits 09:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

This merge request is holding out since September, and unfortunately there is no one is going to get this article merged (This article could have been merged before I changed my mind). SMB9 9thx my edits 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495: consider closing this. SMB9 9thx my edits 12:36, 17 November 2020 (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.