Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Ontario and GTA Tornado Outbreak, August 20 2009


 * 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. Possible renames and redistribution of content are left up to article editors to discuss and enact. Skomorokh 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Central Ontario and GTA Tornado Outbreak, August 20 2009

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems contrary to WP:NOT. Article is about a single incident severe storm/tornado with property damage and one fatality. Extensively covered in other articles, such as Tornadoes of 2009. Also, see earlier consensus at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Singularity42 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This Wikipedia article is NOT contrary to WP:NOT. This is one of the most costly and damaging tornado outbreaks ever in Ontario. The proximity of damaging F2 tornadoes to Toronto (specifically in Vaughan) is unprecedented and has prompted calls to review and change the severe weather warning process in Canada. As such, this is a unique and historic event that is worthy of its own article.


 * The coverage of this event on other pages such as Tornadoes of 2009 is brief and lacking details, and is an inappropriate location for information regarding changes to the severe weather warning system in Canada that are likely to come as a direct result of this specific outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJF444 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, I think coverage in other articles is adequate. In addition to the nomination, I also have difficulty with the article's title (esp. the use of the abbreviation "GTA") and the response from TJF444 implies a level of WP:SPECULATION.  PK T (alk)  17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the speculation to which you are referring regards the implications of this event to the warning system in Canada, there is a clear reference to one of many news sources that discuss the matter and, thus, is not speculation. Also, unless I am mistaken, there are only two comments posted at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board that seem to oppose the creation of this article and I would argue that this does not constitute a "consensus".


 * It should also be noted that there are other Wikipedia Articles, eg: Hurricane Juan, regarding weather events in Canada with similar historic significance (ie: events that are particularly destructive for their region, resulting in rare death and destruction, and prompt calls for changes to the warning system). TJF444 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)TJF444


 * Keep. I think the notability here arises due to the fact that the entire province of Ontario experiences an average of 11 tornadoes per calendar year and there were 12 on August 20 alone. It is also the first time in almost 25 years that more than two F2 tornadoes were registered in one day. This information is per official records of Environment Canada and other sources exist to back up claims of the outbreak rather than just the individual tornadoes. Damage from one of the tornadoes was sufficient enough that a state of emergency was declared and inquiry into possible federal financial assessment has also been triggered as a result. Sufficient prior precedent for these types of articles exists, such as 1997 Southeast Michigan tornado outbreak, February 2009 tornado outbreak, 2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak et al. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If kept, I suggest the article be renamed to August 2009 Ontario tornado outbreak or something similar for the purposes of geographic correctness. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (well, really delete, but that's a given since I'm the nominator... :) ) -- If a new early warning weather system, or something similar is in fact created (or announced will be created) as a result of these tornadoes, then I would agree with keeping the article. But at this time, all there has been are discussions about the possibility, so really, WP:SPECULATION applies for now (yes, there is a reference that it is a possibility, but it is not a certainty as required by Wikipedia). I also wouldn't compare this to hurricane articles. Hurricanes are rarer than tornados, cause extensive more damage to property, has a larger effect on people's lives, and have a much wider impact. Really, the only argument supporting notability at this stage is how rare it was that there were so many tornadoes in a small geographical area in Sourthern Ontario in a single day. I just can't see how that is notable enough for its own article... I also agree with Big Bird about a name change if the article is kept. Singularity42 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I should also add that although there exists articles about other tornado incidents, the ones cited were much deadlier, with a wider impact, and tended to have long-term consequences. I just don't see this incident in the same type of category as the ones cited. Singularity42 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think issues surrounding the early warning system or anything else of the sort are undoubtedly non-notable and not throroughly verifiable at this point. For that reason and because it's not prominently and unreservedly featured in the article itself, I don't think that lack of verifiability or notability of an early warning system should have a direct impact on whether this article is to be kept. The issue of the number of tornadoes in one day and subsequent damage easily passes criteria set out at WP:N due to significant coverage from reliable sources. There is no lack of verifiability and the coverage is definitely significant and available in multiple sources. That other hurricanes or tornadoes were deadlier shouldn't really affect the outcome of this debate if this subject can prove its own notability and I think it clearly does. The third-party coverage on this subject has been extensive enough that no original research is needed to synthesize the individual sources to come to a separate conclusion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. (Also a given since I am the author). I agree with the comments above. As of this evening, there have been thirteen tornadoes confirmed with this outbreak making it one of the largest outbreaks in Ontario history. As mentioned, the financial impact and human toll makes this one of the most notable tornado events in Ontario of late, and certainly one of historic proportions. Extreme public interest has been noted by media sources, for example CP24. This alone should represent a heightened interest in this event and thus warrant the creation of an independent and extended article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJF444 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This was mentioned on the news here in the UK. They also stated the rarity of tornadoes here compared to the American Mid-West. Due to the number of tornadoes in a single day I'd say that the event is notable enough to support an article. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Instead of you all squabbling, how about someone just FIX THIS to make it fit instead of tossing out people's work? Is it any wonder why people are not contributing due to this elitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.107.152 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "FIX THIS". We aren't squabbling. We are having a thoughtful review to determine if there is a consensus to keep the article as a stand-alone article or whether the content should be included in an already existing article. WP:Notability is the most important guideline about the inclusion of articles in Wikipedia, and we are trying to determine if this article meets the criteria or not. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename - Massive and important event in Southern Ontario history, one of the worst series of Tornadoes in decades in the region, marked by largely unprecedented tornado strikes on towns and urban centres. I do believe that this article should stand but should be renamed to reflect "Southern Ontario" not "Central Ontario and GTA" because it was not exclusive to those two regions, it also struck Durham and Markdale which are in Southwestern Ontario.  DMighton (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well as long as the content goes somewhere and isn't tossed out, fine. 174.112.107.152 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCES
 * At least one of the tornadoes was in northern Ontario, near North Bay. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - it's been airing on Inside Edition and WDIV-TV and getting widespread media coverage in the United States, so its' obviously a major outbreak, at least by Canadian/worldwide/outside-the-USA standards... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 00:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename to August 2009 tornado outbreak and also include August 19 in the US Midwest states as part of the article, as that was due to the same system and was fairly significant as well. Combined, they have a better case for an article. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - name must include ONTARIO I believe that the title of this article should specify "Ontario"; the reason that this event is so exceptional directly relates to the rarity and historic significance within the province. The 1997 Southeast Michigan tornado outbreak is an article about a tornado outbreak that had the greatest impact in Michigan, but also included tornadoes in eight other American states and the province of Ontario. Similarly, I think that it is appropriate that this title reflect the extraordinary impact in Ontario, even though other tornadoes may have been associated in other areas. This is a particularly historic outbreak for Ontario and thus justifies the inclusion of "Ontario" in the title. Per naming convention at WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado, August 2009 Ontario tornado outbreak seems the most appropriate title. TJF444 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)TJF444. TJF444 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)TJF444
 * Not if it covers a larger-scale event that took place over 2 days, and that would include at least 35 tornadoes, 22 of which were not in Ontario. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note there is 1985 United States-Canadian tornado outbreak which has both countries in the title, maybe it would another instance with this outbreak, though whether the August should be kept in the title remains for debate.-- JForget 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rename as well to include the Illinois/Indiana severe weather outbreak the day before. Also one criteria that CrazyC83 used as a general criteria for a tornado article was an F2/EF2 or stronger tornado that hits a city of over 50 000. Looking at the Vaughan article, it has a 2006 population of almost a quarter-million people (never thought it was that much populated) and is likely one of the fastest growing areas of the GTA today. In addition by combining the tornadoes of August 19 and 20 it also surpasses the 25 tornado/1 fatal tornado criteria. JForget  02:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article was expanded, there are some other notes: Although not EF2, the Minneapolis tornado on August 19 also hit downtown. The strongest tornado (the EF3 in Illinois) may also warrant extra mention. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even it was very weak it can be added of course, although probably only in the/a synopsis/summary section. None of the US tornadoes might warrant its individual section though. JForget 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - (Yikes! You know where the review is headed when the AfD nominator changes their opinion to keep...) I think a lot of good points have been made about keeping the article's content, probably expanded in some way. Definitely needs a rename, but that can be dealt with in the article's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2009 (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.