Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States tornadoes from April to June 1954


 * 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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus on the scope of this list, but nor is there a consensus to remove this content. Suggest either continuing this conversation editorially, or renominating at a time where you think participation would provide consensus. Star  Mississippi  02:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

List of United States tornadoes from April to June 1954

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of minor to very minor, very common events. Lists of major tornado outbreaks, with deaths or massive damage, are a good topic for lists. But there is no reason why this collection of minimal events would be any more notable than a list of car crashes, house fires, ... See e.g. Articles for deletion/Lightning strikes of 2022 for a similar list of recorded but minor events being deleted recently. Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science,  and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What about similar lists such as this one? These kinds of lists cover many years and also incorporate numerous minor events. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They probably need the same treatment (merging, deleting, pruning...?), no need to have entries like "A brief tornado touched down in a field, causing no damage" or "A brief tornado was spotted in an open field by a trained spotter with no damage being observed." anywhere. But those will have to wait for another discussion. Fram (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment They seem to be listing insignificant ones that did very little damage. If all the minor ones were removed, would there be enough of the major ones to fill an article?  Is this article different than Tornadoes of 1954?  Are either of them valid? Category:Tornadoes in the United States has other articles like this one.     D r e a m Focus  02:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment April to June is too short. I was going to do something like 250 tornadoes listed on one page and other tornadoes listed on another page. I haven't gotten around to it yet though. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: AfD is not cleanup, though it sometimes has that effect. We are not discussing thge scope of the list but the existence. The list per se covers notable events and is thus not indiscriminate. However discussions need to be had on the article talk page about the scope and the inclusion criteria 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We are actually discussing deletion: if both the title and the contents are problematic, then we are no longer in cleanup territory. You state "the list per se covers notable events", but the list combines a few probably notable ones indiscriminately with loads of non notable ones, and the date scope is completely random. We already have Tornadoes of 1954, changing the scope and inclusion criteria of this list would essentially create a duplicate. Fram (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Our views differ. I'm content with that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could at least try to argue what would be in here which doesn´t belong in the general 1954 tornadoes article already, perhaps? If you can´t or won´t indicate how this list, after your supposed cleanup, would differ from the other one, then your vote is rather meaningless. Fram (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. There are many similar lists, see Category:Lists of tornadoes in the United States by time.  Seems kind of random to pick on just one of those lists.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed this list during new page patrol, nothing random about it. And your argument is pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, would you like to delete everything in that category I just mentioned, or not? If so, then I think that deserves more serious caution than just deleting this one list.  On the other hand, if you think this one list is different from all the other stuff in that category, then I’m curious why.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I haven't looked at the others, I have no opinion, and will not try to form one when this AfD is already more than one week old. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD, or vice versa. I would like to delete this article, no more, no less. Do you have any reason why this article needs to be kept? Fram (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the tornadoes discussed at Tornadoes of 1954 can usefully be organized into a list, lists are often a useful alternative way of presenting information. This particular list obviously needs some work, as it does not include a lot of notable tornadoes within the list’s scope, but that’s not a good reason to delete.  I would also be inclined to re-name this list so that it covers the entire year, just like Tornadoes of 1954 does, and it’s a bit confusing why they don’t both cover the same time period.  But that’s a re-naming issue rather than a deletion issue.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So basically creating a duplicate of the existing Tornadoes of 1954 article, okay... If you have to rename and rescope an article, and remove most of its contents, just to duplicate an existing article (but putting the same information into a table instead of pure prose), then simply deleting the article is the much better solution. Fram (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there would not and should not be any duplicate. Tornadoes of 1954 is not a list, and it has a very different format from the list now up for deletion.  Two alternative ways of presenting information can be useful, and the type of information about each tornado is different too.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We are talking here about an article which at the moment covers 5 days, with none of the tornadoes exceeding F2. Even if you presented the info from Tornadoes in 1954 in list format, not a single entry from the page up for deletion would probably make the list. So you would need a new name and completely new contents, but still want to keep this page because... well, no idea why, to be contrarian? Fram (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I try not to be contrarian. 😊 Some lists require every listed item to meet notability requirements, but some lists don’t. The latter type of list may require that every entry in the list *fails* the notability criteria.  This list here is of another variety: complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.  So this list *could* get quite long, in which case I’d support breaking it up by month (as is done now).  Just because these currently-listed tornadoes didn’t kill anyone doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be listed.  Some people might find it interesting or useful to compare these lists for different years, to see how tornado patterns change over time, because of global warming or whatever.  Or someone might like to see what geographic areas require precautions even if no one’s been killed yet. Etc, etc.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that moves it to WP:ILIKEIT / WP:ITSUSEFUL. Which can be said about any list someone can come up with basically. If people want to discern how ronado patterns change over time, they would do better to download a database from a reliable source, not trawl to page after page of monthly lists on Wikipedia. There were 550 tornadoes in the US in 1954 alone... Fram (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are always big advantages to using reliable sources instead of Wikipedia. In the present situation, I think the editors who made these tornado lists probably bit off more than they could chew, hence the incompleteness.  There is a way of telling which tornadoes are most worth our attention, see Tornado.  I would not object to inclusion criteria that omit the smallest tornadoes.  But, again, that would not require deleting the list.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you place the inclusion criteria at a fairly reasonable "F3 or above" (still 46 tornadoes for the US in 1954), you wouldn't be left with anything from this article, so yes, that would require deleting the list... Fram (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * F2 tornadoes cause “considerable damage”. I would be fine with omitting only F0 and F1 tornadoes.  I’d also be fine with keeping F0 and F1 because this scale seems more related to the effect on humans than the strength of the tornado.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ...which would mean keeping the current list, which is already lengthy for 5 days, filled with very minor incidents of no notability whatsoever. "A list of minor to very minor, very common events.", as evidenced by the yearly number of them, and the lack of much damage. Even the F2s usually have only damage comparable to a severe house fire, which is an everyday occurrence which is probably noted in some database as well, but is not of further consequence and not worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * F2’s cause more damage than 78% of tornadoes. They cause significant damage, whole roofs ripped off frame houses, interiors of frame homes damaged, small and medium trees uprooted. Weak structures such as garages, barns, and mobile homes completely destroyed. See Fujita_scale.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Severe house fire". The kind of fire that completely destroys garages or mobile homes, damages interiors of frame houses, destroys roofs and buildings, and kills inhabitants. The kind of fire we don't create articles or lists for, as they are sadly all too common, even though they are life-changing, earth-shattering, for the people involved. Fram (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you quoting yourself there? Anyway, F2’s and greater are the top 22% most powerful tornadoes, and I think confining lists like this to F2’s and greater would make the lists more manageable.  But it doesn’t seem absolutely necessary, so long as we have reliable sourcing.  So that’s my opinion, and pretty much all I have to say.  Thanks for the discussion.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My thought was that this article can be expanded as time goes on. I already added several additional significant events, including intense tornadoes. Anyway, if this list is going to be delete, then why not this one as well? That list also incorporates many insignificant events. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2022 (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.