Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Greenfield tornado

2024 Greenfield tornado

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This may be too early to do, but this is WP:TOOSOON. we still don't even know lots of the damage, and as usual this tornado has already been widely forgotten (from what I've seen on the news and other sources). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado for an example of this. While both tornadoes are barely comparable, this still has that same general precedent. The driving factor for this AfD is still the WP:TOOSOON, as we usually wait more than a month to make an article on a tornado.(And it wasn't even the deadliest tornado of the outbreak). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tornado is also notable for its DOW measurement, which has already been published in an academic setting. It's certainly important to the history of tornado research, and its death / injury toll was the highest since Rolling Fork. This tornado will almost certainly not be forgotten in the meteorological community on account of its damage and measured intensity, unlike Sulphur, as well as other EF4 tornadoes such as Barnsdall 2024 and Keota 2023. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 based on the theory that it was a conflation of unrelated events (including this one) that should be stand-alone articles. My views did not find consensus; I will abstain from voting here. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It wasn't the deadliest but it definitely was the most infamous tornado of the sequence, arguably one of the most tornado of the 2020s, not to mention its record breaking DOW reading that (even though it lasted only a second) had recorded winds up to 300+ mph, so personally I think the article should remain Joner311 — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this, it likely was one of the strongest tornadoes since at least 2013, and will likely be a remembered tornado in the state of Iowa. ImAdhafera (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As people have said above, the DOW measurements of 300 mph winds, the death/injury toll + the damage is a good bit enough to justify an article. Poodle23 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen – What happened to the full community consensus literally a couple days ago not to have an article? This article has plenty of issues still. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:2024_Greenfield_tornado --Wikiwillz (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar See the University of Illinois paper, which is academic evidence of an exact range for peak wind speeds, which dispels a lot of the original deletion discussion's points. We're well beyond the point of Twitter citations. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional publications were already out at the time of both deletion discussions. Anyone claiming it was twitter speculation was just not paying attention. Wikiwillz (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call that 'full community consensus'. At the time, the sources known to editors from June were the FARM team's Twitter post, and the NBC article. NBC stated 300+, and, while Wikipedia does allow Twitter in certain contexts, editors gravitated towards the NBC article's lack of a precise wind speed estimate. The University of Illinois paper is now a known reliable source with exact wind speed estimates (309-318). The other argument I saw was the article being short and having 'empty spaces', which I will concur on, but the main point from the original draft's lack of consensus has been resolved. As for notability, the paper states the estimate is one of only three above 300mph, alongside Bridge Creek-Moore 1999 and El Reno 2013. Both of those have articles, so notability shouldn't be an issue. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the AfD has nothing to do with its' notability (as it in the past day has proven its' notability) but that it is WP:TOOSOON. I'm reiterating the now-inactive User:TornadoInformation12's policy of "wait till all info is out." It's notable, just the article was created in a hurry. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly wanting to !vote neutral. Basically, here is my thought process: Article was made WP:TOOSOON, given everything regarding the tornado (damage wise) is still preliminary and will be until mid-August 2024 (at the earliest). However, I also believe the tornado should have an article, given the WP:LASTING coverage/impacts of it. A search on Google for "Greenfield" "tornado" shows several news articles (10+) in the last 2 weeks, even though the tornado occurred nearly 2 months ago. So, here is what I propose doing: We draftify the article only until the finalized damage reports come out in mid-August. Following the release and a subsequent re-check on LASTING coverage (that shouldn't be an issue) then it is moved back into mainspace. Seems a little formal to do, but that has and still is my overall ideology: no individual tornado articles until finalized reports come out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]