1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado: Having a separate article to cover the same information is a WP:CONTENTFORK .  The author also recently started 2024 Sulphur tornado , which was overwhelming merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado .  United States Man ( talk ) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep – As a test before article creation/move into mainspace, I copied and pasted the entire section for the Jarrell tornado into my sandbox ( User:WeatherWriter/sandbox ), which came out to 22,500 bytes.  The article, pre-AFD was 45,690 bytes.  For reference, the article is twice the size of the section, meaning not a clear WP:CONTENTFORK .  The article clearly passes WP:NEVENT as well as WP:LASTING , with articles like this and this decades later, specifically on the tornado.  Other rational in the nominator's statement involves WP:Other Stuff Doesn't Exist and the nominator specifically brought up the article's creator, meaning they did not focus on content (article) and choose to focus on the contributor (creator) .  No clear reason to delete has been provided.  This is also a WP:COAL for me, as I think I made my reasoning clear and I do not want to respond to questions or others in this discussion.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Much of the excess character number comes from the lead section and the "Case studies" section which uses unnecessarily long quotes and could be entirely condensed into one paragraph.  Quantity does not equal quality.  United States Man ( talk ) 03:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The lead section is perfectly acceptable in length, and I will say that the quotes can be sheared down a little bit.  It still doesn’t make it a complete content fork, however.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge?  Delete?  - From what I can tell looking over these articles for the first time, this article is just a regurgitation of what is provided more succulently on the 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak page.  The fatalities section in particular is almost identical word for word.  If there are new details in this tornado article that were not provided on that outbreak page, they should be merged into the outbreak page.  Otherwise, this appears to be an unacceptable content fork and should be deleted.  In theory, I'm not against an individual page for the Jarrell tornado, but I think the main outbreak page presents the information so thoroughly that it would be inferior in every case.  wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions ) 03:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - It is over twice as long, and thus does not meet the criteria to be deleted under Wikipedia:Content forks .  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry for the note again, but the entire section has been fixed and expanded upon further.  Feel free to check it out, and there shouldn't be any copyvios there anymore.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 11:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - the main outbreak article is what… 23,000 bytes?  This article is over 2 times longer (over 43,000 bytes).  Also “more than covers the tornado”?  Does it go over national reactions, documentation of the event; including the famous “dead man walking” photo, case studies, and even road names?  “More than covers tornado” isn’t a good reason for deletion in this case.  Also, no need to bring 2024 Sulphur tornado up in this.  Even after removing the “case studies” part that you had talked about, it was still over 4,300 bytes.  So that isn’t really an excuse to delete either.  This includes the copyvios in the ""fatalities" section, lead length, "case studies" length, among other things.  I will continue to work on rewrites as this fine Tuesday progresses.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] one more note , this article has like 10 more images than the main summary, and I oulfnt work with merging, as you can’t merge “documentation” and “case studies” into it.  Also, the case studies part is perfectly acceptable, and both sources are confirmed to be Public Domain.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep – One of the most powerful and deadliest tornados in US history.  It is also the last EF5 tornado to happen in Texas as of 2014.  No reason what so ever to remove.  Gengeros ( talk ) 06:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep: The article discusses about a major tornado event in US history.  There is absolutely no reason to delete this page.  Just expand the page and that would be all.  RandomWikiPerson_277 talk page or something 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep At ~49k bytes it's enough to stand on its own and the Jarrell tornado itself is the main source of notability for the outbreak article.  TornadoLGS ( talk ) 03:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - as far as I can tell, there isn't enough unique information in the article, compared to the outbreak article, which, by the way, is only 6,622 words.  The article for the individual article is 4,245 words, but as far as I can tell, there is little, if any information, that isn't already in the outbreak article.  Since the article started as a copy and paste, I think whatever unique information that is here should be merged back into the outbreak article, which is already a good article.  I'd like to remind other users that article length is based on words, not the number of bytes.  ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - As of now, this page now has enough information that it would be unreasonable to merge this with the parent outbreak page.  I don't see a reason for a delete or even a merge when casual readers will look for a direct page on the topic instead of looking at the outbreak synopsis.  humbaba!!  ( talk ) 20:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as there is enough information in the article to keep it solo.  Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 23:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep – There is enough information in this article to stand on its own.  Poodle23 ( talk ) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly KEEP - There is more than enough information for this article to stand on its own.  It definitely meets WP:Lasting.  12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So yeah, I am very very strongly in favor of KEEPING this article.  12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 15:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reiterating, please don’t delete.  12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why on earth is this article even nominated for deletion in the first place??? 12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because much of it was copied and pasted from 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak .  ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Initially.  It’s been heavily improved since then and was assigned as a B-class article.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep I’m surprised Jarrell doesn’t have an article already, that tornado was so significant.  It deserves its own article.  There are also articles of less destructive tornadoes and other F5/EF5 tornadoes.  JulesTheKilla ( talk ) 15:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It previously existed as part of 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak .  ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There are numerous comments here arguing to keep the article because of how severe the Jarrell tornado was.  The significance of the event is not in question, though.  The deletion argument is not based on notability, it is based on being an unacceptable kind of content fork.  Even now, the vast majority of the article has just been copy and pasted from the outbreak article, with some minor rewording since this nomination.  That does not change the fact that very little information here is distinct.  Things that are distinct, such as the dead man walking photograph and case studies surrounding the tornado, can be (and previously were) succinctly described instead of being purposely drawn out to fill out the article.  Nobody argues this was a notable tornado.  That is also not the point here.  wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions ) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We’ve already gone over this, the vast majority are still in support in keeping this article, and the fact that people don’t realize it even was a content form says a lot.  As of writing this, the article has been expanded enough to not qualify as a content fork, and copyvio-wise the vast majority agree that it is not, as of now, a content fork.  Community concensus goes, too.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I do apologize if that came off as aggressive.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 23:41, 21 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.

Discussion outcome: keep