Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Grand Rapids tornado outbreak


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  17:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Grand Rapids tornado outbreak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was a minor tornadic WP:EVENT that barely warrants a section in the yearly tornado article. Even though tornadoes impacted Grand Rapids, damage was not particularly significant and there were no deaths or injuries. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not news.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP. Does not meet WP:GNG -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into "Late August 2016 Great Lakes tornado outbreak". The August 24 event is notable, so I think that deserves its own article, and this precursor event could be a section in there. I would be fine with Delete as well, though. Jdcomix (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go with a merge since there is too much of a gap between this event and August 24 to call it an outbreak sequence. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete article (Merge some info in article-at reduced amount-with yearly article). Regrettably, I can’t justify its existence as it currently is. Hopefully the author can bring more info that will do so. As it is right now it only talks about half the outbreak, the storms around Grand Rapids. This only makes them notable in that area (not national or international news), and seeing how they’re only EF0-EF1 storms, their notably had very likely already waned there enough that they'd already stopped talking about it as well. Lastly, a bunch of its current info is already covered in the monthly list article (with better detail).  On a side note I do support Jdcomix suggesting of starting the "Late August 2016 tornado outbreak" (or "Late August 2016 Kokomo tornado outbreak") article.--Halls4521 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – Don't know whose idea this was, but this little group of tornadoes is hardly deserving of a section at Tornadoes of 2016, very much less deserving of an article. United States Man (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hello. I am the one who created the article and I'm not familiar with how articles surrounding storms or tornadoes are determined notable or not. I decided to take on this challenge after these series of tornadoes passed through near where I live. There are quite a bit of reliable sources discussing this outbreak, including this one from the Associated Press/New York Times (international press) and NBC Nightly News. The tornadoes passed through some of the most populated areas in Michigan without injuries (though they were only EF0s and EF1s, it is very uncommon for tornadoes to rip through our downtown metropolitan area). I'll see if I can provide more to this article to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. The NBC video tells of other tornadoes that occurred as well, though the majority of them occurred near Grand Rapids. I would gladly expand the article to include those events. Sorry if I wasted anyones time with this article, like I said I'm new to the storm/tornado side of Wikipedia :).--WMrapids (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, we usually give articles to major outbreaks with at least a few strong tornadoes or outbreaks where at least one significant tornado (EF2 or stronger) strikes a major metropolitan area. Most outbreaks do not get articles. From what I've seen of articles, I wouldn't recommend an article for anything less significant than the April 2014 North Carolina tornado outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With that article, there were about 11 tornadoes. The NBC video says other tornadoes came from the same storm in Ohio and other states. This article also shows that the Grand Rapids outbreak's 6 tornadoes was about half of what Michigan sees on average annually happening all in one day. I'm not sure of what our state's largest outbreak number was, but the 1953 Flint–Beecher tornado outbreak had 8 spread across Michigan in one day (albeit they were stronger tornadoes). The 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak was probably the largest in Michigan's history with about 12 tornadoes in one day. Looking at this site, I believe this outbreak was the third largest in Michigan's history, although the tornadoes may not be as strong as in other states, F0 and F1 tornadoes are the most common here.--WMrapids (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The total number of tornadoes alone is often less important a factor than the significant tornadoes. A single EF3 tornado may be more notable than ten EF0 and EF1 tornadoes. The article I link to was not much larger than this one but it was more notable because it produced several significant tornadoes, one of which was a killer. Weak tornadoes generally do not warrant much consideration. Comparisons to older outbreaks should be taken with a grain of salt since before the 1980s we missed most weak tornadoes, so many older outbreaks were larger than records indicate. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense since the 2011 New England tornado outbreak had only 7 tornadoes but it had an EF3 that caused casualties. But why do articles like the 2000 Brady, Nebraska tornado, the 2006 Westchester County tornado, the 2001 Myrtle Beach tornadoes and the 1997 Miami tornado exist then? There are many more on the list of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks article.--WMrapids (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion at least those articles should not exist, especially not the stubs. I may even look into cleaning house on some of them after this discussion is concluded. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – I don't want to be rude, but this is definitely the worst article I have ever seen when it comes to notability. Therefore, it should not have an article. HurricaneGonzalo &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 22:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure?--WMrapids (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Another comment – This article is not passes WP:GNG:
 * "Significant coverage" (addresses the topic directly and in detail)
 * "Reliable"
 * "Sources"
 * "Independent of the subject"
 * "Presumed"

I find it interesting how my article is nearly identical to the 2006 Westchester County tornado article (size, amount of people affected, few injuries), yet the 2006 article is a featured article. I would like to add more to this article as well as the damage assessments and costs should be revealed soon. There is also plenty of media from the National Weather Service that would be nice in this article as well. If I could have some help improving the article and maybe not hurrying to delete it (WP:Deadline), I think this article would be a decent one for the history of Michigan tornadoes. Like I said, it's not often that we get half of the annual average of tornadoes in one day, so this is pretty notable for this region.--WMrapids (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @, the 2006 Westchester County tornado is well written, unlike the page you created. Please ONLY create articles for outbreaks that have multiple EF3+ tornadoes, and I hope this can be useful in the future. HurricaneGonzalo &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 20:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Westchester tornado article probably should not have been created. That it is a featured article is the only reason I do not intend to nominate it for deletion as well as this one. Regardless, that argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. This outbreak may have been a bit out of the ordinary for Michigan but it is by no means unprecedented or highly unusual. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply-@, while I hope you'll be able to prove the article's notability and improve it in time, I think you might have misunderstood a key point. Almost all the articles (existing and proposed) mentioned have higher ranked tornadoes based on destructive strength/severity of damage (only the 1997 Miami tornado had around the same strength as this outbreak). Example 1: The city I was born in, Cincinnati, Ohio had a tornado recently. It didn't warrant an article not (just) because it was just one tornado, but because it was considered a weak tornado (EF0). Example 2: One of the other times Cincinnati was hit by one was in 1969. On one hand your article is more worthy of existing than one for it since it has more reliable references found for it than the older storm (so far), but on the other hand an article for it would be more worthy because that storm was a F3-F4 (strong-possibly violent; now a days an EF3-EF4), definitely significant (EF2/F2 or higher), and (despite the low count) is one of the deadliest to hit it's "MET" area since 1950. While EF1/F1 and lower can be deadly, they are also considered really weak storms. I would suggest reading the Fujita scale and Enhanced Fujita Scale articles concerning tornadic strength and why the higher rankings are more notable. Also see the August list for an example of usual tornado listing/charting.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a non notable event, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 5 September 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.