Ten mile wide tornado : 38.108.217.140 ( talk ) 13:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Science , Environment , United States of America , Colorado , Kansas ,  and Montana .  Primefac ( talk ) 14:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural nomination, see Special:PermaLink/1152482019#Ten_mile_wide_tornado .  Primefac ( talk ) 14:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , an adequate ambig.  page.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — As the person who contested the PROD, it is a perfectly allowed disambiguation page.  Slight comment as well, user proposing deletion did not discuss whatsoever on talk page discussion I made about why I contested the PROD.  This is actually a duplicate reason to the PROD , which was “ Disambig page for a probable error (see Talk:List of United States tornadoes in 1946 ”.  So this AfD is an undiscussed second attempt at deletion with the same reason.  Sad.  Elijahandskip ( talk ) 15:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral On one hand, only the USWB covers anything relating to a ten mile wide tornado, failing WP:GNG (significant coverage by independent reliable sources).  However, disambiguation pages aren't usually subjected to WP:GNG.  Infinity ( talk - contributions ) 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Insignificant coverage by independent reliable sources.  Longevitydude ( talk ) 18:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Longevitydude , you do realize this will be a redirect (to Tornadoes of 1946 ) if the disabiguation page is deleted, then turned back into a disabiguation page once more tornadoes are listed in 1944/45, which also have “10 mile wide” tornadoes documented by the U.S. Government right?  Elijahandskip ( talk ) 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why should the article be kept because of more ten-mile tornadoes?  The USWB is not independent subject on ten-mile tornadoes (they are the original reporters of the width).  Significant coverage is about the topic being mentioned directly and in detail.  One line in a monthly storm report and a footnote about "10" being miles is not exactly significant coverage.  Infinity ( talk - contributions ) 19:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disambiguation pages are redirects.  Do redirects need to have "significant coverage"?  If yes, then I would like to know so I can have a fun deletion nomination spree through a check of the 800+ weather-related disambiguation pages and thousands of weather-related redirects.  Elijahandskip ( talk ) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No point in deleting if more items are to be added.  Seems quite counterproductive.  Noah Talk 10:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as additional sources seem to suggest anything pre-1950 is either unreliable or contains some kind of error and thus should be taken with a grain of salt.  Noah Talk 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hurricane Noah : Doesn’t matter if the tornado is from 1946, 1945, 1944, 944 or whenever.  Because the 2013 el Reno tornado is recognized as the widest tornado at 2.6 miles, any ten mile tornado is a probable error.  This page, therefore, disambiguates information that is likely false.  Per WP:VNT , it is ok to mark the width as 10 miles in absence of a reliable source claiming otherwise.  However, having a disambiguation page for it is pointless.  If this page is redirected, I will RFD it and if a new disambig is created I will request it’s deletion again, because no matter how many tornadoes are added, the fact of the manner is the information is almost certainly false.  38.108.217.140 ( talk ) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Calling it an error without a source is WP:OR .  Your claims of false information need to have sources to back them up.  Both you and RandomInfinity17 are committing original research by calling these estimates inaccurate without a source to back it up.  WP reflects what the sources say, not the opinions of editors.  Just because the El Reno tornado may be recognized as the widest, doesn't mean you can claim these estimates as false information since that falls under WP:SYNTH .  Don't claim something a source doesn't explicitly state.  Unless you provide another source stating a different estimate or that the other estimate was in error, then your argument is moot.  Noah Talk 23:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OR much?  Wouldn't it be better the have the redirect to the exact place where the footnote is that states it is false?  Do you have a source saying there wasn't a 10-mile-wide tornado?  There are sources saying NOAA records start in 1950.  NOAA doesn't acknowledge anything pre-1950 as official.  So saying it is false would be WP:OR since there isn't an reliable source saying it isn't true.  Is it false, IMO, yes.  But if you want to go the technicality and policy route, this AfD doesn't have ground to stand on since no RS says it is false and we got a source (three refs+) from the U.S. Government saying it is true.  Just let the disambiguation page remain since it is a REDIRECT...Not an article.  I should also point out all three references are different publications in Monthly Weather Review & were written by three different people.  Elijahandskip ( talk ) 22:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a source saying there wasn't a 10-mile-wide tornado?  That is pretty egregiously shifting the burden.  A reliable source is needed to make the claim that there was such a tornado instead in terms of WP:V and WP:RS policy.  The old source from 1946 currently used is pretty questionable for multiple reasons, but also in part due to reports being considered reliable after 1950.  Current-day sources reiterate that and what the widest recognized tornado was.  KoA ( talk ) 18:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Subject fails WP:GNG and does not have significant coverage in sources.  Even as a redirect, it's pointing to a page that doesn't support the claim, which as the IP mentions above appears to be made up and is WP:OR .  None of the current entries in the disambig point to a 10-mile wide tornado.  The widest one listed at [ [3] ] (that's tagged at least with the accuracy warning) is listed at about 8 miles in one source, but is likely dated or inaccurate as more recent sources listed at Tornado_records#Largest_path_width say the widest as of 2013 was 2.6 miles.  It's possible the list has errors or is possibly confusing path width vs. length.  That source has a disclaimer that it's just reports received, not that they are accurate and that a revised list, making it a sort of WP:PRIMARY report possibly too.  Looks like there are a lot of potential issues with the list article's accuracy that cloud this related AfD, but the short of this is that this does not look like a valid redirect.  Delete this as a sort of WP:NEOLOGISM and work on sorting out/verifying the list article later.  KoA ( talk ) 18:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just noting all the 10-mile-wide tornadoes were removed in this edit by Supportstorm.  On that note, saying Monthly Weather Review is a primary source has more ramifications that should be addressed at WP:RSN .  Anyway, my vote is switching to delete on that specific note, but not a perm delete.  Only until any future 10-mile-wide tornadoes are added in future articles.  Elijahandskip ( talk ) 19:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With that last comment there's potential we may need to WP:SALT the term.  As for MWR and not taking my comment out of context, those specific pre-1950 reports likely appear to be collections of unvetted reports, but at least not generally considered accurate or standardized until 1950.  KoA ( talk ) 19:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “likely appear to be collections of unvetted reports” sounds a lot like WP:OR .  I suggest we both stop talking about this since we both agree to delete this now.  Elijahandskip ( talk ) 19:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Elijahandskip, the projecting and WP:BLUDGEONING by you is getting disruptive.  The burden is on you to substantiate that such tornadoes existed in terms of following WP:OR policy.  OR is not, "people cannot disagree with poor sourcing" as has been applied by you at this AfD.  That is just WP:WIKILAWYERING and contradicting our other sourcing policies.  The source is pretty clear that they are only preliminary reports with no indication of how vetted they are, and later sources make a point of excluding that time period due to methodology issues.  KoA ( talk ) 21:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would suggest not letting the cart go before the horse.  Unless there is an explicit need to salt the name, then it shouldn't be done.  A comment is not sufficient to justify that.  Salting is only done in the case of repeated recreation despite consensus for something not to exist.  Noah Talk 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Threats to recreate a likely bogus concept are very much a case for WP:SALT .  Given the added behavior issues here, it does appear to be a case where an additional check would be needed before letting just anyone recreate it.  KoA ( talk ) 21:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't preemptively protect pages based on the threat or likelihood of recreation or vandalism.  This is the same reason why Today's FA is not protected.  It obviously will be vandalized, yet the community has chosen to not protect until such vandalism occurs.  There was a big discussion a few years ago about not preemptively protecting pages.  A case of one person being involved usually results in a block rather than protection being issued anyways.  The issue of protection arises when it is multiple people.  If this is deleted, the decision should be respected.  If someone here recreates it to spite the decision, then they should be blocked from editing at the title.  Noah Talk 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't preemptively protect pages based on the threat or likelihood of recreation or vandalism.  Ironically, that is exactly the primary reason page creation protection is used when such a continued likelihood is apparent.  Admin actions are preventative or preemptive, not WP:PUNITIVE .  If it weren't likely, that protection would not be valid, but we usually don't get people broadcasting they plan to do it and won't drop the WP:STICK .  Regardless of administrative action, the threat was made to recreate the page in terms of WP:POINT , so part of our responsibility at AfD is figuring out how to address that in addition to the deletion question.  KoA ( talk ) 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as none of the subjects in the dab actually have articles.   I would say redirec to List of United States tornadoes in 1946 , which is where all 3 of the current items redirect to, but there is no mention of "ten mile wide" on the list article.  Onel 5969 TT me 00:38, 7 May 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