Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado myths


 * 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. Tyrenius (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tornado myths

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a FAQ. This article is decidedly unencyclopaedic in the present form. Cú Faoil (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rewrite This is a tough call, because although you are correct in saying that it is written in an unencyclopaedic form, a quick Google Search establishes that the topic is notable and has plenty of reliable sources (including US gov ). I agree that this should not be in a FAQ format (or more specifically Myth - Debunk - Myth - Debunk...), but I don't doubt that it can be salvaged into a more standard format.  Joshdboz (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-written, informative, sourced. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep even in present form; I don't see any unencyclopedic content in there, and the form is not even that bad. Tizio 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - As per Joshdboz. Needs a substantial rewrite, with that editor needing to cite more sources, and make it compliant with MOS. Rt . 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: unencyclopedic in form does not mean uncyclopedic in content. AfD is not cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite There is a lot of good information in here, the only problem is it isn't written well. Tavix (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per everyone else. The article seems notable enough and more sources can be added as needed, it just needs rewriting to be more encyclopaedic. Just because an article needs cleanup is not a reason to delete. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Does anyone else get the feeling that this is lifted from somewhere else? It's a great article, but a little bit too great. Mandsford (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD isn't for articles needing cleanup. It's for articles that need to be deleted. Rray (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a pretty decent, useful article. It is clearly notable and has some reasonable sources. More polished writing would be nice, but that can always be added. Tim Ross ·talk  20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. per Mandsford's comment above, I just checked out some of the language from the article for originality. Large parts seem to be identical with . I don't know if the wording on that site is original or if it derives from some other source. Looks like a problem, in any case. Tim Ross ·talk  20:13, 22 December 2007 (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.