Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden downturn of F5 tornadoes

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sudden downturn of F5 tornadoes
This is not really appropriate as a stand-alone wikipedia article. It would be a candidate for merging, but it is not clear at all to me that there is even some kind of interesting sudden downturn to be spoken of. The article also lists F4 tornadoes, without apparent relevance. Mgcsinc 17:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic and verifiable.Gateman1997 18:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, In 1990, there was an F5 tornado in Plainfield, Illinois. --Mjvan12 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but this article refers to the downturn since 1999.Gateman1997 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant content into tornado. This article is poorly titled. The information is encyclopedic but should probably be part of a more general article. --Idont Havaname 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge just the preamble into Tornado. The rest of the article isn't about F5 tornados &mdash; the list is all F4s! -Splash 19:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self-contradicting article. The lead states that the U.S. has been experiencing an unusual lack of F5 tornadoes (none since 1999, or 6 years ago), and then states that it isn't uncommon to go 5 or 6 years between F5 tornadoes, and cites a bunch of examples.  Thus, there is no "sudden downturn".--Scimitar parley 19:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge any useful info into Tornado. Carbonite | Talk 19:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, unfortunately. Or, link to an article discussing the phenomenon. Right now, there is no evidence (presented in the article) that this is anything other than a statistical anomaly. Sdedeo 19:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as Original research - plus it's pointless, an atmospheric study over this short of a term is completely irrelevant. --Outlander 20:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if anything, science seems to talk about an upturn in tornados, not a downturn. Groeck 20:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research CDC   (talk)  21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into tornado. Really belongs on that page as a footnote or sidebar (do we have sidebars?). --BrownHornet21 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * strong delete sources? primary research? bad name for article anyway. Roodog2k 01:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into tornado. The comments on the discussion page (about possible reasons for the downturn) are more useful than the article itself and, if verifiable, should be incorporated. Cmadler 18:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no actionable information. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, irrelevant, self-contradicting (as pointed by Scimitar) and statistical inconsistent. Marlosfabris 2:40, 5 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.