Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Greenfield 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Greenfield tornado

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

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 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I created 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


 * 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)

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)
 * Comment 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * So I am new to the editing game, still deciding even whether to make an account or not, but would Merge with the article in draftspace ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2024_Greenfield_tornado ) be an available outcome? While both still have their issues, this one in in mainspace seems to be a bit further along. To me, it makes sense to take the good information in here, put it in the draftspace article, and then publish that one. From what little I understand, that seems kind of like a Merge process to me, but it's unclear whether merging from mainspace back into draftspace is an allowed outcome of an AfD. 199.209.147.178 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion TOOSOON is more for articles created hours or days before any official information is revealed beyond its existence, or for when facts aren't known or verified. The page for the 2013 El Reno tornado was created well before the final survey was completed, and only 1 week after the tornado occurred, and was never nominated for deletion in its opening months; same for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, which was created a mere 48 hours later. This article (this specific page, not the old draft) was created a full month later when there are concrete and reliable sources for facts giving it notability. I think TOOSOON was a better argument before the University of Illinois paper or NWS survey, but now that the paper's out, as are most of the damage point surveys, the tornado has enough concrete facts and information to warrant an article. The final assessment isn't the only source in most tornado articles, so it shouldn't dictate whether this one gets deleted when so much is known and confirmed about it. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply for : I sort of agree with that, but also partially disagree. The main issue isn’t really with there not being sources, but the fact the sources (and the article subsequently) are all using preliminary information. For example, almost the entire Formation and path and the entire Adair County sections of the article are sourced with only the Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT), a preliminary tool by the National Weather Service to release preliminary statements/press releases. In fact, when anyone opens the DAT, they are automatically greeted with a big slash text which says:
 * Welcome to the National Weather Service Damage Assessment Toolkit. Data on this interface is collected during NWS Post-Event Damage Assessments. While the data has been quality controlled, it is still considered preliminary. (Not my bolding, that is NOAA’s bolding)


 * Official statistics for severe weather events can be found in the Storm Data publication, available from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/sd/sd.html
 * Because of that splash text, that is why TOOSOON still partially applies. That said, I do see where you are coming from. I honestly think we need some new template (similar in a way to a “clean-up” template or the current event template) that we can put at the top of articles or sections (tornadic, tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, ect…) to indicate information in this may still be preliminary. Wikipedia obviously already is an unreliable source for information (WP:RSPWP), however, saying that would help readers know things here are not “set in stone” per say and will be changed at some later date. Eh, I may think about that template proposal later. For this, I am still wanting to stay neutral, but I will say I am leaning towards keeping only on grounds of me finding clear LASTING coverage. I still stick to my premise of waiting at the very least until the official information comes out rather than preliminary information. Basically, wait for the official primary source rather than purely use the preliminary primary source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Despite the annoying fact that the NWS Des Moines doesn't put in damage summary information in both their PNSs and event pages, the DAT had more than enough information to create this summary. Additionally, despite being short, the "Aftermath" section is well written and uses secondary sources. This was not only the strongest tornado of the year so far, but also one of the most well-documented tornadoes in recorded history as well. With all that mind, I believe there is enough justification to keep this article and I don't see it as WP:TOOSOON. Chess  Eric  23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm going to change my position to "keeping" this article here, as long as we can work on it as a community since it does have a lot of issues. I don't think the WP:TOOSOON issues are that important in the context of this tornado, due to what is is said above. Wikiwillz (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn (if that is possible): I'm now also in favor of keeping this due to the above discussion, WP:TOOSOON was the driving factor for the AfD and it isn't even that big of an issue anyway. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since there is still substantial discussion ongoing we'll likely need to wait the full 7 days before closing the AFD, unless there's a full consensus here to end it. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep:Personally, I see no reason to delete it, and believe it doesn't match WP:TOOSOON. it is not to soon, the total distance between May 21st and July 13th (Time of me writing this) is around 53 days. I also think we do indeed, have enough information, just enough for the article to not be deleted. Gamerman-GPC (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 13 July 2024 (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.