Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Weather

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Weather. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Weather|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Weather. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Weather/archive

watch

Weather

Japan: Typhoon Dujuan Strikes

Japan: Typhoon Dujuan Strikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be LLM-generated (with a 100% AI rating from GPTzero). Article content is already covered on 2026 Pacific typhoon season. An article about this specific typhoon, if warranted, would require a WP:TNT. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Weather-related AfD discussions. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Non-standard article with non-standard content whose only likely actual typing involved Ctrl+C and then Ctrl-V from an LLM. Nathannah • 📮 19:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Strong delete - LLM garbage like this has no place on Wikipedia. Jdcomix (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Should note that the article creator's only edits that aren't this or link suggestions are mostly similar AI-generated articles about disasters in the China region, including one about the Ghost Glacier collapse in Nepal, in their sandbox. AdoTang (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

List of tornadoes in the outbreak of April 6–8, 2006

List of tornadoes in the outbreak of April 6–8, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging this article to Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006, as I consider this to be an unnecessary content fork with an insufficient amount of information to remain a single page. The main article itself is lacking in content and has no specific tornado sections, so it would benefit from the addition of the content in this page. The main article will need to be further improved, if this merge goes through.Sobriquetical (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Weather, Lists, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia (U.S. state), Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

support per nom, no real notability by itself. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 10:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

support no objection as page creator. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm One (1974)

Subtropical Storm One (1974) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to 1974 Atlantic hurricane season because the storm was removed from the Atlantic hurricane best track after the recent Atlantic hurricane reanalysis. It appears that the storm track was merged with Tropical Depression One. As such, much of the meteorological history is outdated. Also, the article is only 490 words, which puts the article in the bottom 10% of good articles. The 1974 Atlantic hurricane season is only 3,604 words long, and already includes 442 words about this system. Since the effects were relatively minor, and could easily be included in full in the season section, I propose merging. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Weather-related AfD discussions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nominator's rationale. Well argued. FaviFake (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Catfurball (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Larry Richert

Larry Richert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional and appears to fail WP:NBIO. Amigao (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem notable. Only other source I was able to find was a Mediaweek article from 2001 that covers much of the same content as the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article. The other sources on the article don't appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV either. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since 2016. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, and Weather. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

He seems to be somewhat known locally in Pittsburgh since he was the CBS Pittsburgh weatherman and also did sports. I don't know if that's enough to pass notability. source source source the last one calls him a "local celebrity" --~2026-50812-63 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

2022 United Kingdom floods

2022 United Kingdom floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

2023 United Kingdom floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2024 United Kingdom floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2025 United Kingdom floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flooding is, unfortunately, a common event in the United Kingdom. These four articles are all collections of routine news articles about flooding-related events which occurred in these years; there's no indication that any of the events chronicled in these articles were of any great or lasting significance (with the exception of Storm Franklin in 2022, which already has its own article).

(See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 United Kingdom floods, which was closed as delete for essentially the same reasons.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Weather and United Kingdom. Omphalographer (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I was thinking on nominating these themselves as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 United Kingdom floods. Particularly, I find that these articles have a number of (almost) unsurmountable issues:

• All of these articles consist on "the UK experienced flooding", "there was rainfall", "there were of flood warnings", "some flooding happened here and there", "some damage was done by the flooding", etc. assertions. Which is ok, and you can surely find sources for this happening, but this by itself falls under mere WP:ROUTINE unless there was some specific flooding that became notable on its own per WP:LASTING and WP:INDEPTH. This has not been proven so far.
• The 2025, 2024 and 2023 articles were created in January of these years, way before any actual flooding took place, which self-evidences that these were created in anticipation of any such flooding to serve as yearly compilations of news about floods in the UK.
• The 2024, 2023 and 2022 articles were created by the same author than the 2026 article. Not wrong by itself, though it helps the idea that these have all been created as part of some sort of "annual event" category per se rather than per the events' own merits (and with "flooding", generically, not having the established notability that other yearly events may have).

Impru20^talk 20:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Haven't you read Wikipedia:WHATABOUT yet? SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 03:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify to Floods in the United Kingdom, which probably should exist. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per Hurricanehink. I think it's reasonable to have a longer-term list that describes major floods, but I agree that relatively routine and minor local flooding incidents should not be included and articles are not needed for every year. Reywas92^Talk 02:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I created these articles seeing as Floods in the United Kingdom does not exist. I was going to draftify 2026 United Kingdom floods as nominated. Should they be merged into a new article with a different name. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It depends. The problem of these articles is that flooding, by itself, is not necessarily relevant, so merging all four articles into one would merely mean we would have one enlarged problematic article rather than four. Even Floods in the United Kingdom is a mere list of such notable events, not a listing of floods every year. Impru20^talk 14:46, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Floods in the United Kingdom does not yet exist as an article. It’s a redirect to the broader List of floods, so a dedicated list would be a parent article to the major floods in the country. Similar to Floods in California. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The point is: is such article really required? Even the Floods in California is far from being a systematic listing of yearly flooding. Impru20^talk 15:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

That’s why I would start with moving them all to a draft, removing the routine events, keeping the deadly and significant events, and use that to flesh out the new article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

What are the "deadly and significant events"? Impru20^talk 17:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I counted at least one deadly event. I’d also include any of the floods that damaged buildings or forced evacuations. I agree that most of the content here is pretty routine, in fact like 90% is pretty trivial, but I think there’s some salvageable material here. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "floods that damaged buildings or forced evacuations" will be too low of a threshold for inclusion - that encompasses many routine flooding events, including many which aren't even listed here. Omphalographer (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Even that single deadly event does not seem particularly notable, is it? "an elderly couple drowned after driving their car into floodwater". That particular flood seems rather an isolated incident (also highly dependant on infrastructure's inadequacy, rather than a major flooding) and its coverage fully ROUTINE, as sad as it may be. If there is any salvageable material, please say which so that we can at least debate about that. Impru20^talk 20:04, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Surely an article on Floods in the UK would list deadly events, ones that resulted in injury, and disruption to life, like evacuations and power outages. I think that would be an interesting organized list that is not just full of routine events, but instead focuses on the disruptive events. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

"deadly events, ones that resulted in injury, and disruption to life, like evacuations and power outages" Why? Are these inherently notable? Impru20^talk 07:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I’d say these are life-changing aspects of severe weather is worth noting, and having a list of such events would be useful for the encyclopedia, JMHO. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but Wikipedia notability is not based on what you say, but on what sources say. How are these events inherently notable and not just ROUTINE? We don't have articles (nor lists) for every death in the world, nor for every weather-related event. Impru20^talk 21:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

What is the issue with the sources? Not every weather-related event is notable but in cases of severe weather I believed that it was. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

What are such cases? Impru20^talk 16:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Weather events causing disruption as described by reliable sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Which events? Impru20^talk 18:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The flood seasons. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

For the third time in a row, I am specifically asking you to tell which specific events do you consider as relevant enough. Generic flooding, as you are hinting, is purely WP:ROUTINE. Impru20^talk 20:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between "specific floods" and "generic floods". Whether floods are relevant is subjective. I only based these articles on other pages like 2016 United Kingdom floods under WP:EVENT for notability it would meet "significant national coverage" as WP:ROUTINE does not refer to natural disasters. WP:LASTING says "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable" - so damage and loss of life increases relevance. The "natural disasters that result in widespread destruction" - more hurricanes and earthquakes than floods. The floods also had "Geographical scope" and were reported on for a long time. The page Wikipedia:Notability (weather) could do with clarity on floods as I see the difference between a single flood and a year of floods. I agree with comments above I would Draftify . Moondragon21 (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

"Generic floods" is when the only thing you can say about them is "there was flooding", "it rained", "lots of water", "there were warnings", etc. No major event, no major reactions, just routine coverage of a routine weather event, but turned into their own article.

As for 2016 United Kingdom floods, that actually also seems WP:ROUTINE (it directly mentions and links to 2016 European floods; looking at that article's history, it looks like the former's author kept adding content to the latter, then just split it away when it got too big). Probably could be AfD'ed as well.

Draftification only works if the article in question can be improved. Unless you can go back in time and somehow make the 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 floodings more relevant or invent new ones, draftifying those articles is basically a death-sentence within six months for them anyway. Just delete these right now per WP:SNOW. Impru20^talk 21:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

They should not be merged. The issue at hand is that the events described in these articles are largely routine occurrences with no lasting significance. Combining them into a single, longer list does not address that issue. Omphalographer (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete and oppose merger. Flooding is very common like you said, and merging just forces readers to read uncomfortably. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 03:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't understand what "Draftify to List_of_floods#United_Kingdom" means. List_of_floods#United_Kingdom is a section in a mainspace article, not draftspace. Please specify whether you want the four articles draftified, resulting in four distinct draft pages, or merged into an existing article/section.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftified so they could be merged into one single on UK floods. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Responding to this, I maintain my opposition to either of the aforementioned proposals (this is, I still support deletion). Reasons already explained above. Impru20^talk 17:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of August 9, 1993

Tornado outbreak of August 9, 1993 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This outbreak fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTABILITY and there appears to almost no coverage of anything about this event besides the initial few days. It can easily be covered in a small section within the Tornadoes of 1993 article, which it already is. Timcigar12 (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Weather-related AfD discussions. Timcigar12 (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, United States of America, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:14, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete I remember working on this article in my early days...and wondering why it was needed. LOL! ChessEric 21:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC) Draftify per Hurricanehink. ChessEric 23:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify to Draft: List of United States tornadoes from July to September 1993. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's actually a really good idea. ChessEric 23:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry for the late response... I'd personally avoid the draft because I do plan on making monthly articles eventually (when I have a decent amount of time which likely won't be a while) but 1993 is nowhere near the first year I'd do. I plan on going in and restructuring the tables for all the current articles and then working my way backwards from 2007 which I believe is the first year with all months being covered in articles. Also, the draft (Draft: List of United States tornadoes from July to September 1993) would probably be deleted before I got to it. Unless someone wants to do a singular monthly article for 1993, which I don't expect anyone to do so at the moment. Timcigar12 (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the logic of User:Timcigar12, this can be included in the Tornadoes of 1993 article, however that section should be expanded to include more due information from this article. Minnastronomer (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge: As noted by Timcigar12, this can be covered within Tornadoes of 1993. I am suggesting a merge given that some of the lines in the August 9 event sub-section could be moved to Tornadoes of 1993 to give more detail. (At a minimum, I think it would be reasonable to move the following lines and their sources over with some slightly rewriting: "A mobile home was swept off its concrete slab and tossed a quarter of a mile. A farm home was also damaged." + "Multiple farm buildings were destroyed. Two people were injured when their car was slammed with debris.") --Super Goku V (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge. I think it can be merged into Tornadoes of 1993. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 12:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Doug Allen (meteorologist)

Doug Allen (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography that doesn't make any real claim to notability. The person is evidently a competent guy who did a good job and was known and appreciated locally, but all sources are very local and there is no significant coverage of him in them (from what I am able to tell – the two references to wgal.com are not available in my part of the world, but since that is a local news website it wouldn't count towards notability anyway). bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Pennsylvania. bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Even if wgal.com's nature as a local news website didn't keep it from contributing from notability, the nature of that being the website for WGAL–the television station Allen worked for–would disqualify it as a non-independent source. (No direct opinion on the article itself at this time.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Weather, Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Purely a local personality, not meeting our requirements for notability. Had a long career, retired, very routine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hurricane Ava

Hurricane Ava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to 1973 Pacific hurricane season because, while it was a strong hurricane, it didn't do much. I recently did some copyediting to the Ava article, and a lot of it was dependent on some original research, or more generally about Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. The Ava article is now only 430 words. The 1973 Pacific hurricane season is only 2,049 words long, and already has 260 words in Ava's section. I believe adding another 170 words would not overwhelm the article, not when Ava was the strongest storm of the season. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Weather-related AfD discussions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 20:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, it is notable, as shown by multiple papers in Google Scholar that are about the hurricane. Secondly, the body of the article was 1,200 words until the nominator trimmed it to 430 prior to the nomination. Finally, merging is about the inclusion of content in some other page, and such editing is governed by WP:ONUS (which is a policy) that states, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content, and I am not convinced that the disputed content should be included at the target. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - as being one of the first C5 hurricanes in the basin, it is notable in that regard, also per Kelob2678. RedAmi! (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Also... if this were to be merged, then that would mean Hurricane Linda (1997), which is arguably more notable, would have to be merged as well, which further proves my reason to Keep. RedAmi! (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@RedAmi: a reminder not to use other stuff existing as an argument, not to mention Linda had land impacts and threatened California. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

"*As for "the nominator trimmed it", I trimmed unnecessary parts of the article that were reliant on improper sources. Notice how many times the Northeast and North Central Pacific hurricane database" was used for a TXT document that is difficult to read, which is about strong Pacific hurricanes in general (and not just this one). As for the Google scholar sources, the Skylab measurements is already included, and the research part is already mentioned, but that the observation/research part is only 131 words, which could easily be included in the 1973 Pacific hurricane season article (which is only 2,049 words long, and already covers the Skylab research). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

My point is that your reason for merging is that the article is too short, which is misleading if we omit that you cut two-thirds of it prior to the nomination. This is independent of whether your edits were improvements, but I, for example, do not understand the rationale behind this removal. As long as there is coverage specifically about Hurricane Ava, we can have a page about it, while the target should be sourced only from articles that provide an overview of the season as a whole. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I removed the information about "180 knots with some gusts at 200 knots" because it was incorrect and inconsistent with the rest of the article. As I said before, the information about its intensity was largely dependent on the TXT EPAC HURDAT, which typically is not included in tropical cyclone articles (considered "HURDAT records"), as it was not about Ava specifically (such as the reference to Guillermo, the satellite estimates for Linda/Rick, or the part about Kenna exceeding it). Your other point ("the target should be sourced only from articles that provide an overview of the season as a whole") is not how tropical cyclone articles are typically handled; instead, the season article handles all of the storms in a given season, and an article be split only when there is too much information that what can be fit in the section of the season article. Between the season article, and the List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes article more broadly for strong storms, there isn't much content about Ava specifically. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Articles should include incorrect information if it was reported by reliable sources. In that case, the information was attributed to a National Weather Service spokesperson. The Guillermo reference mentioned Ava, so it could be included. That overview articles should be written based on overview sources is consistent with general Wikipedia policy, if this is not done in weather articles, it just means that this is a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This is actually not a problem, and is done quite often, but cannot be used as a reason to merge. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

"Articles should include incorrect information if it was reported by reliable sources." - I highly disagree with this, not for a "records" section. Also, the part in Guillermo is the same reference already used, the best track, which, again, is about strong hurricanes in general, not about Ava specifically. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I restored the information for now. Cuts should be described here or on the talk page, like Tropical Storm Gilda (1973) ~2026-49720-10 (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

To the above user, I explained my cuts. I suggest you log into your account by the way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

And the cuts were still disputed after you explained them, suggesting that they should probably be left in the article per WP:BRD. ~2026-49767-43 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind logging into your account? And no, information that is incorrect should not be left in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, I am not the TA. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kelob2678: the TA has been blocked for being a sockpuppet. I didn’t think you were the TA, but I had a feeling the TA might have been a long-term sock puppet that likes to disrupt merge discuss discussions. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Category 5 hurricanes regularly meet the notability threshold if there are good meteorological sources on them, regardless of societal impact. There is nothing wrong with a 400 word article that is well-written and well-sourced. A merge should only be performed if there is a legitimate lack of reliable meteorological (or other) sources. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Small note, but we have several Category 5 hurricanes without articles, including Kristy in 2024 and Humberto in 2025, which were merged because they were too duplicative to their sections in the season articles. As I said up top, the season article already has 260 words on Ava, so it could handle another 170 words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Weather categories

for occasional archiving