Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Clarksville 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 of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. Clear consensus not to retain below (delete + merge), and probably a consensus to merge independent of delete !votes regardless of its preference as an ATD. The eventual redirect can be re-targetted to a different section within that article, or a different article, if so desired. Daniel (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Clarksville 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)

Not notable enough for standalone article, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT. Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado, which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. Cutlass ^Ciera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even if you think it is a minor event, it had killed 6* people and counting. Even if it wasn’t an EF5 or even an EF4, it had done possibly permanent damage to the people of Clarksville, TN. Yes it wasn’t the 2013 el reno tornado but it doesn’t hurt anyone to have this article. It is better to inform people of events like such because events like the December 9th tornado will get covered by other big news like politics, then people forget. With an article about it that people can read, the reader can understand the devastation that the people that experienced the tornado had gone through. There is no harm by having its own article, it might help though. People reading the article could contribute to helping the communities hit by the tornado through donations and or by informing others. Once again, no harm is done by this article. It should not be deleted. EvanAndrews22 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it killed three people, not six. Two, even if it did permanent damage, it doesn't mean that it is notable. The rest of your statement reads off as WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I am just going to repeat what Reecey said and say that it was one of the strongest December tornadoes in recent years. While not THE strongest, it is still notable in its own right, being the strongest of one of the worst December outbreaks in recent years. You have provided no points except for the fact that El Reno is only notable for size, which it is not. You also fail to realize that the outbreak of which this occurred in was a one-in-a-million chance. I mean, some tornadoes took the same paths as the ones two years prior, which is remarkable, and can only really be compared to the Moore tornadoes and the Codell Tornadoes. I rest my case, this should not be deleted for the reasons stated above and the reasons stated by other people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this, but this article is NOT a stub, and you can tell that there is enough info for an entire article. It also was very long-lasting, being an hour long. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your argument of "Long lasting effect on a decent sized community" is easily disproven by the fact that the tornado destroyed 114 homes, heavily damaged 857 others, mostly in a town/city of over 160k people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 out of 160000 is a very small percentage. Even if we assume 10 people per household, that's still trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with that, it is a city of 160k, which is a more than decent sized community. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're tunnel-visioning on what you personally feel is notable. Tornadoes like this occur all the time. Check out Perryton, Matador, Amory, Sullivan, Winterset, Wynne, etc all from this year. None of these have articles for a reason. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but we can't use Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. ChessEric 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major event, and even if you don't live around here, it killed half of the people that were in this outbreak, and it was possibly a multi-vortex. If you want to use the "It was an EF3" argument, then we should also delete the El Reno tornado article. You see how unfair that is? I stand my case. Clarksville (and Hendersonville) deserve their own articles, separate from the current, very tiny, outbreak article. This is IP address user, signing off. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The El Reno tornado was particularly notable due to its large size, which is unique. A run-of-the-mill EF3 with three fatalities is not really notable. It doesn't work that way. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the storm doesn’t matter. The damage it caused does. By saying it doesn’t work that way is saying that those 6 people who died don’t matter as much as those who died in the el reno tornado EvanAndrews22 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. The size of the storm does matter. The EF3 damage was three or four very poorly built houses flattened and a strip mall destroyed. That itself is not grounds for an article. The rest of the article is refuting an argument I never made. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, It killed 3 people, and was an EF3. It was one of the steongest December tornadoes in recent years. The article shoudl be kept. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, this isn't proving it to be notable. Being "one of the strongest December tornadoes" is not grounds for an article. Three people is not grounds either. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial weather event. Under 10 people dying is rather routine for a weather event; to be blunt, we've had articles in AfD where more people were involved in a mass shooting in the USA and it's been deemed not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: The event was a low-end EF3 and was fairly tame. Dozens of other tornadoes even in the last couple of years are much more worthy of an article over this. The speed in which this article was written gives me sort of WP:HATSHOP vibes as well. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-Oaktree b & Wikiwillz — Would you both support a merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023? The AfD nominator also supports a merge into the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given it is substantially thinned down to increase readability. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023, now that the latter article is in mainspace. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023: we have more than enough sources to support verifiability for an expanded section in the target article. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky as an WP:ATD, non-notable event. Just because the tornado was an EF3 and killed three people doesn't mean it is notable. ~ Tails Wx 17:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to 2023 Northern Tennesse Tornado. Cwater1 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As article creator, I do think it passes WP:GNG, so deletion is out of the question. That said, while I am not opposed to merging, a merge will make the outbreak article…well, off-balanced, since the RPS (readable prose size) of the tornado article is actually larger than the entire outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) (See new comment below relisting comment) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has no ground to support it. The section can be trimmed to make it readable. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is readable as is. It passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Your deletion reasonings was strictly based on casualties/impact, but that isn’t what makes an article notable. Sources do. That is why WP:NEXIST exists. The 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake survived AfD because it has multiple reliable sources. The state of the article (and overall impacts) weren’t that high…Yet it has the coverage, so it passes notability requirements. Like I said, I’m not opposed to the merge, which it seems you aren’t either. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large amount of these sources lack WP:DEPTH. The NWS survey is a routine survey done of every tornado that is reported to cause damage in the US. Several of the other sources are news articles that only say one point (e.g. that the tornado was an EF3). Cutlass ^Ciera 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lack to add Cutlass, that this is how a majority of tornado's are written. The NWS survey is the most official and comprehensive detail of damage and chronological impact. There's little need to scour for sources that would really have less detail or authority to the survey itself. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article passes WP:GNG, but the thing about general notability guidelines is that they're.. well... general. There are nuances to consider. I support a merger, sounds like the smart thing to do. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Now that an article for the outbreak has been created, there is no need for an individual article for this tornado. I support a merger. ChessEric 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ChessEric 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-We can summarize this in the outbreakn article. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Since a WP:SNOW, merge closure was overturned, I am going to double down on the keep. Passes WP:GNG, passes WP:NEVENT and while still a recent event a few days ago, the tornado still gets complete individual news articles about it ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]"Federal disaster declared after Clarksville tornado"), aka secondary RS coverage at least 5 days after the event, indicating WP:LASTING may be satisfied as it clearly isn't a true WP:NOTNEWS event. All original issues with the AfD all pass. In previous struck comment, I originally was ok with a merge, but given the merge overturning, I no longer support a merge. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the merge that was overturned in DRV. It was your blatantly inappropriate WP:INVOLVED attempt to prematurely shut down discussion here. Your renewed "double down" campaign smells of WP:SPITE. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:SPITE at all. I honestly don’t think it needs merged anymore, given the clear RS consensus that it wasn’t just a passing news event, meaning it passes all the requirements to be an article. Also, several editors suggested the discussion be quickly-closed by a countersigning admin. That never occurred, so yes, the merge was overturned, because that was an option suggested by some editors during the DRV. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - "destroyed 114 homes, damaging 857 others", pretty notable. "claimed the lives of three people, including a child, and injured an additional 62 others." Notable - who on Wikipedia puts a number to "notable" when it comes to human life? — Maile (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in death count,but is in injury count. The only notable thing about it is that it damaged over 900 homes. EF3 tornadoes happen all the time, but other notable ones (Such as Amory or Little Rock). If this tornado has an article, a few others from this year should as well (Like the ones mentioned above). 72.46.58.62 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to put keep in the reply above. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – No reason for a standalone article. Can easily be included in main outbreak article. United States Man (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Would be consistent with past practice in the WikiProject. A standalone article just isn't justified, IMO. Penitentes (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not convinced this is WP:LASTING yet. We can always split the merge out to another article if we've gotten this wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We're doing this again? My position hasn't changed; this can fit in the main article without being split. ChessEric 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The summary actually isn't finished because the Kentucky part has not been put in yet, but I still lean merge. ChessEric 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not again; it's the same AfD, resuming after an out-of-process interruption. Please strike out one of your two !votes here. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...you talking about me? My other comment was a note, not a 2nd vote. Also, someone else relisted the AfD, not the original creator. ChessEric 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you have two bolded Merges. Please strike one. I relisted the AfD as a close of the DRV. It is the same discussion now being allowed to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate vote though and I don't understand why that matters. I'll do it though. ChessEric 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE and limited WP:EFFECT or WP:DEPTH. All sources in article are either NOAA or WP:PRIMARYNEWS. No reason for a standalone article to exist. Note for closer: If merge is unsuccessful, please consider my !vote for deletion as not independently notable under WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — it is not surprising that there are numerous reliable sources covering the Clarksville tornado. However, I don't think that notability independent of the broader severe weather event has been established, namely in terms of diverse coverage (beyond human interest stories and what-was-hit overviews) and in-depth coverage (beyond just narrative from local news). —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As unnecessary CFORK, can be squeezed into the December 9-10 article and still adhere to SIZERULE. Btw the DRV was wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.123.49.55 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, WP:CFORK is not an issue as the section in the outbreak article is 138 words while the article has a readable prose size of 1,278 words. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this topic can sufficiently be covered in Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023. There is not enough WP:LASTING impact from this tornado to warrant a standalone page. Recreating a standalone article can be revisited in the event there is more lasting impact down the road. Frank Anchor 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not sure why this discussion is reopened, but this article is not notable enough nor WP:LASTING enough. Most of the information is just WP:TOOMUCH or information no one cares about with means to beef up an article of a weak tornado that caused small pockets of EF3 damage in an average path. With this being said, I feel the author of the article, who wrote the entire article less than 48 hours after the event, may have been acting out of WP:HATSHOP motivation, though I should proably assume good faith. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — per Last1in and TheAustinMan. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 23:24, 15 December 2023 (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.