Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornadoes of 2015


 * 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tornadoes of 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is 100% taken from Tornadoes of 2014 and has no content. I have no control over what to do with an article with other users' contributions, but at the moment at least, this article is of no use to the encyclopedia at all. I have made a not-so-great attempt at Draft:Tornadoes of 2015 to create something with some details, although I have deemed that it too is "definitely" not worthy of publication. There are undoubtedly going to be many people who oppose my suggestion just because you can "wait", but why leave an article that won't even help readers if they happen to stumble upon it? This isn't a tropical cyclone season article, so there are not seasonal forecasts, which is perhaps the only justification for having an article before at least the first few to several tornadoes form (the number of tornadoes necessary may vary). I am not saying this article should not exist at some point, but it certainly is not worthy of publication at the moment in my truthful opinion. The page may be recreated at some point, and links to this page may be retained, but at least until the subject actually exists, this article contains the kind of information that could just be stuck on the Tornado article. Dustin ( talk ) 18:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another idea would be to redirect the page to a section of Tornado which will contain a general summary, and at some point, someone can either create an article at the redirect or request an article be moved over it (I've created a draft, but like I said, it too will be pretty much useless until the first tornadoes have occurred). Deleting the article won't result in any users having wasted any significant amount of time, as that is as simple as a copy and paste, so redirecting might be a good idea. Dustin  ( talk ) 18:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still stand in saying this article should not have been created so early. Even though it is always pretty much certain that a tornado will form each year, this article never had any hope for any content for at least its first ten days. It would have been preferable that I had nominated it then. This article is currently of very low quality in my opinion, and it could have done better had it been started as a draft then published a week or two into the New Year, but this is clearly futile. I should have brought up this issue when the article was created. Regardless, in the future, I do not think this sort of article should ever be created without at least a few unique details (that is, something other than the first paragraph which applies to pretty much every year). All creating tornado season articles this early can do is leave readers with articles that don't actually educate them about the subject. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep – There is no reason to delete this, as at least one tornado has been reported today in Mississippi. Just fix the page's problems and start from there. It would be a dumb idea to delete it just so it can be recreated in a few days. United States Man (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you consider my logic at all? You hardly deserve to contribute if you do nothing other than read the header, which is how it appears. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the same procedure that is done repeatedly year after year. You are doing nothing but creating an unnecessary fuss. I'm not going to argue, but this has no good reason to be moved, deleted, or redirect, only to be moved back in a few days. Just leave it. United States Man (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (spout)  @ 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep; request snowball close. Part of a well-maintained series of weather list articles.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter what you say, "speedy" does not apply if you have read what I have said at all, which I am guessing that you probably haven't. Dustin  ( talk ) 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not sure why this article was sent to AFD. There were several tornadoes across Mississippi and Alabama this afternoon, and we should expect to see survey results for those tornadoes sometime tomorrow. Those results will be added to the page accordingly. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there weren't any tornadoes when I first attempted to list this article as of my earliest check. That may have changed, but all of those tornadoes would have been today, so there at least weren't any before that. Dustin  ( talk ) 03:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the same rationale you should be running around Wikipedia and AfD'ing existing list articles for 2015 television episodes in which the first has yet to air. I recommend starting with Game of Thrones (season 5).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidently, you didn't fully consider what I said. No tornadoes had formed at the time of this AfD. Game of Thrones (season 5) actually has known information about it, whereas Tornadoes of 2015 was an entirely generic, useless stub with no information that couldn't be applied to every other year at the time of the AfD. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even now, it is mostly non-unique. "This page documents the tornadoes and tornado outbreaks of 2015. Strong and destructive tornadoes form most frequently in the United States, Bangladesh, and Eastern India, but they can occur almost anywhere under the right conditions. Tornadoes also appear regularly in neighboring southern Canada during the Northern Hemisphere's summer season, and somewhat regularly in Europe, Asia, and Australia." That information applies to every other year, but with "2015" changed to the respective year. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The chances of tornado formation in 2015 were an easily-predictable 100%.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they weren't. By that logic, we should start Tornadoes of 2016 and we may as well start Tornadoes of 2017 too while we're at it. Dustin  ( talk ) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You nominated three days into the new year, not really an analogy to those far-off-in-the-distance examples. Now that the tornadoes are already being reported, this should be withdrawn.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * SNOW Keep - I'm a great believer in deleting things created way WP:TOOSOON. We shouldn't be crystal ball gazing to predict the future with articles about things that haven't happened yet. That said, this article was created 8 days before 2015 about things almost guaranteed to happen in 2015 and it was nominated for deletion only a few days into 2015. I understand the nominator's point but we allow things like 2016 Summer Olympics to be created well in advance because while Olympics have been cancelled in the past, there's a pretty good chance that one will happen. In fact, we have 2020 Summer Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics too. By comparison, the chances of a single tornado forming in 2015 are very good; a "sure thing" in betting terms.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:39, 5 January 2015 (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.