Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas 1982 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Christmas 1982 tornado outbreak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tornado outbreak whose "article" consists solely of an infobox, with no body text at all — and the infobox also fails to specify where said tornado outbreak took place. Article was tagged for speedy A3 by NeedAGoodUsername, but that was declined on the grounds that there is content in the infobox. Of course I'll withdraw this if somebody can actually add some text to the article, but it's not keepable if it's simply going to linger around in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I think this might be the same as 1982 Christmas tornado outbreak, which places the tornados in Arkansas and Missouri, at the very least. There is brief discussion about these tornadoes in the Monthly Weather Review, at pages 1674 and 1677–1678. However, the articles have differing numbers of tornadoes (66 v 74), the Monthly Weather Review says there were 96 in the month, ABC News and the Washington Post say there was a storm in the region on 24–26 December 1982 with only 29 tornados, and Forbes refers to a "Christmas outbreak of 1982" with 42 tornadoes from 23–25 December 1982. ( They're reporting on an email they received, so I'm not sure about how great this source is, but... ) /wiae   /tlk  15:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete both - per Wiae's search above, there doesn't seem to be enough to verify the content of either article; they're both completely unsourced. (Of course, if we were to delete the other, we'd have to bundle it in first.) ansh 666 03:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as certainly questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  02:19, 8 February 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.