Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, 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 Speedy keep Jdcomix (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable article, proposing a merge back to 2011 Super Outbreak Jdcomix (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  15:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep (as creator of the article) – Tornado has inherent notability as an EF5 regardless of the scale of damage. There is sufficient coverage to meet WP:N and warrant creation of an article. Furthermore, the main 2011 Super Outbreak article is too large (72 kB prose) to support merging in the specifics of an individual tornado article. Many other sections require this same treatment, but this was the first tornado I decided to tackle. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (ec) - drive-by nomination lodged in the midst of an ongoing merge discussion, which has so far failed to reach a consensus that the article should be merged. By all measures, the article clearly meets general notability guidelines, so the nomination rationale is inadequate. It's worth noting that the main article currently contains nearly 12,000 words of readable prose, which is well into the upper limits of recommended maximum article size. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - a fatal EF5 tornado during the largest tornado outbreak in US history, with a more than adequate amount of information available and listed, certainly meets the notability criteria to have its own article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now that you say it, this definitely should be kept, main article is extremely large. Jdcomix (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep – If one would have read the aforementioned merge discussion, they would have noticed that this has little to no support. Bringing this here was a very poor idea in my book. United States Man (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2016 (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.