Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado

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 merge‎ to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024. I'm selecting Merge instead of Redirect as it looks like the relevant content has been removed from the target article which would make a Redirect confusing to our readers. This is the consensus I see from reviewing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sulphur tornado

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created WP:TOOSOON and has a multitude of structural, grammatical, and factual issues. Common practice in these situations is to first have a smaller section at the outbreak page (Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 in this case) and only expand to an article after official surveys are released and lasting impacts are apparent. This tornado was nothing exceptional or anomalous, as killer EF3 tornadoes are fairly common. United States Man (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024. Sadustu Tau (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed on all points. I am personally in support of deletion.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Move back to draftspace. While there are some critical issues with this article, it does not need to be deleted. if WP:TOOSOON is the issue, then why not move it back to a draft so it can be worked on until it is ready for an article? MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge and Redirect, as per Kingsmasher6's rationale. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change back to keep, Scott5114 had some good points relating to Wikipedia:Notability, and this isn't a content fork, as it is quite literally 6+ paragraphs when the summary was one. MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire article

We already have a section on the Sulphur tornado on the Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25-28, 2024 article page. I agree, this is unnecessary work by user:MemeGod27. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works too, but whether we delete or move to drafts, the main takeaway is please DO NOT make a tornado article like this again until you have the skills, understanding, and know-how to do so. You simply aren't ready for this yet. As I was told when I was in your shoes: "observe more, edit less". Otherwise, it's like trying to drive a motorcycle when you don't have the experience; you're gonna wreck no matter how confident you may feel. That's what happened here. The best thing you can do right now is take a more passive role and focus more on observing how these articles are created, worded, and sourced.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformatoin12[reply]

Move to draftspace. I agree with @MemeGod27, I think the article should be retained in draftspace until the info needed to finish it is released. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge and Redirect. Seems to be a better option, retains the good information, and trims the content. We can always split it back out later if we need to.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024#Sulphur, Oklahoma as an alternative to deletion. The article is in poor quality and the tornado summary could be merged into the mentioned section, since that section mostly lacks a summary of the tornado. The aftermath of the Sulphur tornado could also be placed in the aftermath section of the tornado outbreak sequence article as well. I personally don't think moving this back to draftspace would be a good idea since the article was created too soon; additionally, merging a portion of the article's content to the targeted section would be best. Also opposed to deletion as said above. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change redirect target to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024. Even though the section was deleted, it wouldn't make sense to delete the article since the outbreak sequence consisted of the Sulphur tornado, which was one of the more significant ones. Redirecting still wouldn't be a bad idea! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 14:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoInformation12 just stop with the lectures. I got it the first 5 times. You don't have to jump on everything I say, and your "constructive talks" are seen as extremely derogatory and full-on harassment by me. I am now stepping away from this, and retaining a NPOV. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for your well-meaning, but this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a reporting site, time should be taken before a decision regarding article-genesis should be made. See WP:WWIN for more details.

Also, I don't think he is lecturing you. I believe many users here aren't emotionally attached to their words and like to vent at others who have edit conflicts with them. Perhaps you ignored his advice and TornadoInformation12 is frustrated, given all he stated was basically "this article is in poor quality, created too soon, learn a few more tips for editing, lets all take a break". Its a valid point. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is honestly exactly why I left. I’m done here and with this article. Thanks :( MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 since it is a perfectly suitable target. Might a snow close be possible on this? Even the editor who started the article, and did most of the writing for it, is opting for merging/redirecting. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would second this, if that's an option.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 and merge the content that can be reliably sourced that isn't already on the parent article. This should not receive an article until much more detailed information comes out from the National Weather Service (NWS Norman, for this event) and the tornado itself has lasting notability cited in reliable sources well after it has taken place. I did not support the creation of this article initially because of the heavy usage of preliminary info, lack of information present, and the speculations/personal estimates that the editor used to create the article, and I stand by that opinion. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find a redirect for a tornado that lasted only 12 minutes and only hit one town, albeit pretty hard, to be unnecessary. In all honesty, I'm about to nuke all 3 of the Oklahoma tornado sections I put in until the NWS Norman puts out more information. This was premature and is yet another example of excessively trying to split individual tornadoes into their own articles. We've recently had other editors coming to us saying that some of our summaries in both sections and articles are too long. We need to be mindful of that for the future or else this is going to get more and more out of hand. ChessEric 00:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 per points made by ChrisWx. While it does warrant its own section in the article I fail to see how it is more noteworthy than the Elkhorn or Minden tornadoes, or why it should have its own article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the tornado section. We have redirects for even less significant tornadoes, it’s a viable search term, and WP:CHEAP. 216.165.127.20 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. I fail to see how this article is properly informative, noteworthy, and relevant for the Wikipedia tornado projects. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't relevant to whether an article is kept on Wikipedia: see WP:GNG. This tornado has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources: news9.com (the website of CBS station for Central Oklahoma) has dozens of articles on it addressing the topic directly and in detail. (We used to joke around that Gary England could control the weather, but he's retired now, so KWTV clearly is independent of the article subject.) If the article is not informative, the solution is to edit the article and make it be informative, not faffing about with deletion discussions. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott5114: So you do not believe this is a WP:CONTENTFORK from Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024#Sulphur, Oklahoma? The similar "Elkhorn–Bennington–Blair, Nebraska/Modale, Iowa" is roughly the same length as the article's entire summary section. You haven't mentioned that possibility, so I just wanted to see if you had a more or less direct "Yes" or "no" style answer to the CONTENTFORK idea. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article up for deletion is 2.7 Kib, and the page you've linked seems to contain a one-paragraph summary of it. Unless I'm missing something incredibly obvious or some policy change y'all passed when I wasn't paying attention, that would seem to me to be a proper application of summary style being applied when an article is spun off. I don't think a merge is appropriate at this point, because the nominated article is lengthy enough at this point that coverage of this one storm would overwhelm the article for the outbreak as a whole. (Plus, it would mean that you'd probably have to edit out some of the images and illustrations, all of which are very good—that map of the 5 overlapped tornado warnings is enough to get my blood pumping and I'm 1200 miles away from Sulphur.) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the images should be kept if we merge or keep.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section for the Sulphur tornado was deleted by TornadoInformation12, thus redirect is not a viable option. --2600:4808:353:7B01:8EA5:E802:B49B:5924 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.