List of costliest tornadoes in 2022: A more condensed version of this information can easily be included within Tornadoes of 2022 .  A previous AfD a few months ago resulted in an unanimous merge.  United States Man ( talk ) 02:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — I can’t find the specific record of it, but over a year ago, the nominator was ok with adding information to tornado summaries if the tornado caused over $1 million in damage.  Nominator is also the one who AfD’ed the previous version, which led to an RfC, which actually led to the “condensed” version mentioned being factually inaccurate, but perfectly allowed due to the WP:VNT mentality.  Doesn’t fail notability.  In fact, it stays perfectly in line with the RfC, which the nominator’s original AfD nomination was about back in March 2023.  Deleting this means we should also delete List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes for being a niche topic (list starting at 1 billion).  A list for costliest tornadoes of the year at $1 million seems to be an acceptable number.  After all, out of over 1,100 tornadoes, only 41 make the cut.  I completely support keeping this article, but I do find it odd and suspisious that the nominator of this AfD happened to be the nominator of the other AfD as well as a click-starter to the RfC which basically ended costliest disaster lists for tornadoes…Well…at least makes Tornadoes of 2022 permanently inaccurate, but within Wikipedia standards per that RfC.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the creator of the list just said in the above comment that a condensed version of the list is inaccurate, then why would a much longer version of the list on a standalone page be any more accurate?  Doesn't make sense to me at least.  United States Man ( talk ) 02:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The factual inaccuracy is mentioned on WP:VNTIA and in the FAQ on the talk page of Tornadoes of 2022 .  I’m guessing the nominator didn’t actually realize the RfC they pushed for added factual inaccuracies to the article that were accepted at the RfC.  Basically, the RfC said no editor can say a tornado was Xth-costliest without a secondary reliable source.  The “condensed” list the nominator wants says the top 5 costliest tornadoes as it is backed by an outdated source.  The list in question List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 does not state any tornado as the Xth-costliest as it just lists all tornadoes that caused $1 million in damage or more during the year.  The reader then has the option to sort on their own without Wikipedia stating it.  That was what the RfC concluded.  The closing remark was, Editors should reference a non-NOAA secondary source when claiming a tornado as the Xth-costliest .  Reading WP:VNTIA would help explain the RfC’s outcome.  The previous AfDed version of this article stated the top 10 costliest per month during the year.  This article does not.  Per that RfC and other articles that exist like List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes ($1 billion starting for the list) and List of costliest tornadoes in the Americas ($100 million starting for the list), a set amount to start a list would not be niche at all.   If you do the math, only 3% of the yearly U.S. tornadoes made the cut.   The nominator saying this is too “niche” is wrong since other articles have similar style minimums for their lists.  This article passes exactly what the RfC wanted, which was to remove any Xth-costliest Wikipedia editor added text.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should also note that in the 2023 version of this list ( List of costliest tornadoes in 2023 ) non-NOAA sources are used.  In this article (2022 version), non-NOAA sources are also used.  This article list satisfies WP:N as it isn’t a niche topic & satisfies the RfC earlier this year.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note – per the comments of User:WeatherWriter , if we are knowingly displaying incorrect and inaccurate information based on mistakes made in the sources that are being used, it seems to make the case much stronger to just remove the lists from Wikipedia altogether.  United States Man ( talk ) 04:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said mistakes made in the sources.  You clearly didn’t read WP:VNTIA , which explain the situation.  Per Wikipedia’s own rules, we have to use secondary sources for those situations.  If those secondary sources are outdated, that doesn’t mean we remove the info.  It remains outdated.  That was what the RfC concludes.  Now if you want to make the accusation that this article ( List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 & List of costliest tornadoes in 2023 ) is “displaying incorrect and inaccurate information based on mistakes in the sources that are being uses”, you need to have a very strong case to say why we should deprecate NOAA , CoreLogic , and AP News , since those are the main sources being used in those two articles.  I would love for you to explain that.  So, unless that is what you mean, get the facts straight that the “incorrect and inaccurate information” was actually what you desired when you wanted NOAA information removed as the sole source for tornadoes to be added to that list, hence the RfC’s exact conclusion.  This just seems like you want all tornado costliest lists removed, without any true basis or reason why.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did read that link, but since you wrote it all yourself, I detect a high level of bias in the entire argument.  United States Man ( talk ) 04:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then why didn’t you challenge the list ( Tornadoes of 2022 ) at all?  I mean, you stated earlier that this list shouldn’t exist since the condensed list exists.  You didn’t even know that the RfC actually made it inaccurate until I told you a moment ago.  You supported removing NOAA-only sourced tornadoes from the list and the RfC agreed with you.  Per WP:VNT , which I didn’t write, the RfC’s outcome was perfectly acceptable and I’m perfectly fine with it.  What I don’t get it why you had the desire to first say this list should be merged into an inaccurate list, then say that both lists should be removed for inaccuracies.  And yet, an RfC said one list was perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia standards (exactly what you wanted) and that the other list being inaccurate would mean deprecating NOAA, CoreLogic, and AP news.  You can’t have it both ways.  Tornadoes of 2022#Costliest United States tornadoes exists the way it is right now per that RfC’s conclusion.  An RfC made it that way and said it was perfectly fine.  This article is perfectly fine as well since it follows the rules set by the RfC (the previous version back in March 2023 did not) and it follows other styles of articles like the List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes , which is basically a similar list but for hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean.  That hurricane list was created in 2008 by the way.  I created the 2023 and 2022 list and started the 2021 list before you nominated the 2023 and 2022 for deletion.  I asked you on your talk page what you considered not to be a “niche” damage total, since you seem to be ok with $1 billion damage totals for tropical cyclones.  You still hadn’t answered that question.  I’m not seeing a solid reason yet as to why this article or the 2023 article should be deleted.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Can anyone link the RfC?  Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a perm link for it .  I’m not sure in what archive it is in now.  That’s the link used in the talk page FAQ though.  Also, here is a perm link to what the March 2023 version of the article looked like.  This is the version that was redirected last time and was agreed was not ok per the RfC.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's good to see that the RfC mentioned that it needs a secondary source to calculate the total cost of each tornado.  The article in mention does NOT do that.  It lists the primary source, the National Centers for Environmental Information , as the main source for the damage totals.  Not that I wouldn't necessarily trust the primary source, but this information could be included with newspapers, books, or other websites that provide a similar total to these damages.  If the costs were done independently then sent to the NCEI, then that source would be more helpful than what the gov't agency says.  That being said, Conditional Keep .  This article needs secondary sources to back the primary.  I see justification for WP:N .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The RfC did not truly say a secondary source was needed for the total cost of each tornado.  Only that we cannot say a tornado was the costliest of a year without a secondary source.  I wanted that clarification added to the RfC since the original closing wording of the RfC indicated what you just described, which would have removed the majority of tornado damage totals from Wikipedia, including non-list style damage totals like ones listed in tornado infoboxes as well as overall outbreak damage totals since those are generally referenced by some NCEI source.  NCEI’s FAQ page ( [15] ) explains how it works is, “ NCEI receives Storm Data from the National Weather Service.  The National Weather service receives their information from a variety of sources, which include but are not limited to: county, state and federal emergency management officials, local law enforcement officials, skywarn spotters, NWS damage surveys, newspaper clipping services, the insurance industry and the general public, among others.  Basically, NCEI is the database holding all the information.  NCEI doesn’t make the information, but basically makes the report based on all those sources listed.  NCEI is classified the finalized information from the National Weather Service since it also incorporates all the other sources.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The RfC does truly say " Costliness of a tornado must have a reliable secondary source attributed to the fact. " So this needs to be followed.  Provide the source they get from, or I am a delete .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I guess you are a delete then since no other source practically mentions weather damage totals besides NOAA.  Rare exceptions happen, but like WP:VNTIA explained, those generally become outdated quickly.  Well, after this AfD finishes, if the decision is to actually delete, I will take it apon myself to remove every natural disaster damage total that isn’t backed by a secondary reliable source.  Most US weather disaster damage totals will be removed in that case.  But, better to make Wikipedia verifiable than accurate.  Gotta uphold that community consensus at all costs I guess.  Cheers!  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 01:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're taking this too much to heart.  Simply place a second source.  It's a notable topic, hence the conditional keep.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Conyo14 : , I started adding secondary reliable sources to the article in these 2 edits ( [16] [17] ).  Both of my edits were reverted, so I am now unable to add more sources to the article.  Thank you for the advice though.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Conyo14 : The sources added either did not mention monetary estimates or directly referenced the NCEI database, which itself is already referenced.  They don't really accomplish the job of secondary sources to back up the monetary estimates.  United States Man ( talk ) 17:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] United States Man is correct.  Though having a source to the event is helpful, having a secondary source to the cost is better.  I'm beginning to see whether this article (and the 2023 one) count as WP:LISTCRUFT considering the previous nomination ended in a redirect.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I never liked this idea.  Not all tornadoes, including strong tornadoes, have damage figures and this makes me skeptical about whether or not these rankings are truly accurate.  Even though they aren’t ranked anymore, I just don’t this is a good idea.  Chess Eric 23:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the article is interesting, factual, notable, NPOV, and gives citations.  If there is doubt about the citations, that should be flagged on the citation.  Rick Jelliffe ( talk ) 13:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This is a very confusing discussion to parse.  We are not hear to rehash an RFC or to bicker with editors who hold different views than our own, the only concern should be do secondary reliable sources exist which can support claims in the article.  Reading through this all, that answer is still not clear to me.   I think these large blocks of text discourage uninvolved editors from wanting to participate here so in any future comments, please be concise and remember your fellow editors are not weather experts.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Damage and cost of repair figures seem arbitrary.  source pertaining to them seem iffy at best.  That aside, this doesn't need to be it's own article.  Anything covered in here can be covered in other articles.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 09:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I have struck out my conditional keep.  This article reads as WP:LISTCRUFT with no notability regarding damage costs.  Unless it is a severe natural event with multiple secondary sources on the topic (as is required by the RfC), it does not meet the WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG and is not meeting WP:N .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — the purpose of this article is achieved by browsing Tornadoes of 2022 and clicking the row-sort button.  Kate the mochii ( talk ) 04:31, 18 July 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.

Discussion outcome: delete