Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1974 Xenia tornado


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see consensus here to Keep this article. Whether or not the article is a WP:CONTENTFORK depends on whether or not the article will be expanded beyond content taken from another article and there seems to be the sense that this expansion will occur. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

1974 Xenia tornado

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK that was created as an exact copy/paste of 1974 Super Outbreak. Ultimately, it serves no purpose other than to duplicate information. Some discussion had taken place prior to this article's creation at Talk:1974 Super Outbreak. Generally, it is unhelpful to split/duplicate information when it can be easily condensed into one place for the convenience of the reader. United States Man (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep — This is not a complete content fork. Some information was removed, which isn’t necessarily about the tornado’s summary. Having a stand-alone article allows for the the tornado summary to be separated from the aftermath (which included a President’s visit). Extremely notable tornado, very famous and well-known one, and the article is in good enough shape to be a stand-alone article. Noting, I am the article’s creator. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Extra comment: Nominator was told by an admin in User talk:Elijahandskip they should nominate for deletion rather than redirecting it, which borderlined the 3RR rule and came very close to being disruptive editing. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I copied the content from the main article and pasted it into the text window, and nothing changed. That is, by definition, a content-fork. United States Man (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * USM, I don't pretend to understand what is going on here, but you need to remove the commentary about the author's motivations from your deletion rationale. Keep this focused on content, do not comment on the contributor. Please amend your nomination in your next edit. Girth Summit  (blether)  03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)  Concern has been addressed.  Girth Summit  (blether)  03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I support the idea of this article being deleted in its current state on the merits of being a content fork. Simply copy and pasting its section from the main tornado outbreak article into a standalone page without any additional information clearly meets the definition of a content fork and satisfies the criteria for article deletion. However, if Elijahandskip plans to expand this article imminently, then I very strongly oppose deleting the article. Of the tens of thousands of tornadoes that have ever occurred in the United States, Xenia is probably the second or third most well known tornado to most people. There are scores of articles that move beyond the environment or beyond the damage it caused in the moment. There is plenty of information about its aftermath/legacy. Work just needs to be put in to expand the article. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's also fine with me, but copy/pasting article material is generally not acceptable. Just not sure how much more information there is to expand on, unless deep digging is done. United States Man (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Copy/pasting is generally fine when creating new articles, and common practice in many situations, but it needs to be done with attribution to meet the terms of our copyright licence. Guidance is at WP:CWW, please all involved take note. (I haven't checked whether this has been done in this case - it can be done retrospectively, do so if necessary. I really need to go to sleep) Girth Summit  (blether)  03:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Maybe with further reduction of the section at 1974 Super Outbreak, mainly because the outbreak article, at 89 kb prior to the split, is borderline WP:TOOBIG. So the outbreak article could stand to be trimmed a bit by splitting off some topics. If it is not kept, then I would opt to merge rather than delete, since the redirect is a likely search term. Page protection might be needed in that case, if further edit warring is likely.I also second Wxtrackercody that expanding the page for the tornado would help it. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Work in progress. I've started adding new information into it. I discovered multiple sources indicating some new details in the timeline and such as well as slight time corrections from what was in the outbreak article's section. I'm not good at writing the typical meteorological synopsis sections, but the supercell produced other tornadoes, so having a section like that might be useful and would help expand the article with new & specific content. I attempted to remove some of the information in the outbreak section, but I think it needs to be re-written with less specific information and such since the entire tornado summary is in the article now. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is one of the strongest tornadoes to ever occur and is a notable topic in itself. There is quite a bit more content here, and well-sourced content at that, than there is at 1974 Super Outbreak. If this were to be merged back into that article, the section would be twice to three times as long as the sections for the other major tornadoes of the outbreak. Perhaps the 1974 outbreak section could be pared down some and the remainder of that content merged with this article, instead of the other way around. Highway 89 (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ohio.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Per above. The tornado is highly notable in and of its own, but for as long as information not already present in the section of the article is found and added, this tornado's article is on thin ice for me. Mjeims (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the most notable tornadoes of all time, and the Super Outbreak article should be split per WP:SIZERULE as well. The outbreak article will go too in-depth on the Xenia tornado, per WP:DUE, unless this article is created. I will note we split off the 2011 St. Louis tornado which was a lot less notable then this one. 71.125.62.208 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - assuming content continues to be added to expand this article, as plenty of information seems to exist that was not incorporated into the outbreak article's Xenia section. Generally I think it would have been better to begin the article in draftspace or userspace first, so as to address WP:CONTENTFORK concerns before it ended up in mainspace, but here we are. I say go for it. Penitentes (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per Penitentes.
 * Poodle23 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage of the Xenia tornado indicates significance on its own. Joyous! | Talk 17:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Tornado is significant and notable enough to warrant an article. Tails   Wx  23:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.