Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 : I haven't checked all 99 sources, but at a glance none of them talk about a week-long "tornado outbreak sequence".   Because these events aren't part of a single outbreak sequence.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You...nominate an article for deletion with 99 RS sources, including one of the strongest tornadoes in history , with full RS sources published within the last 48 hours?  Really?  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 exists separately from this article, which appears to be about individual tornadoes on these dates which no source appears to claim were a single "outbreak sequence".  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A tornado outbreak sequence is just multiple back-to-back tornado outbreaks .  That definition is scientifically published and sourced.  Tornado outbreak#Tornado outbreak sequence .  You should not have AfDed this, but rather gone to the talk page for split attempts.  I absolutely highly oppose a deletion of this article, given it is absolutely notable for Wikipedia and no one can question that.  You have an issue with the article name and should have used WP:SPLIT and WP:RM ...not AfD.  You did not look at what to do before nominations for deletion , which would have mentioned that.  Just to note, you are directly saying (through a deletion nomination) the article should not exist...despite having 99 RS sources, including a high WP:LASTING impact with clear LASTING coverage.  So no, you will not gain any support for this AFD as this is a very botched AFD.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy oppose and recommend a fast-paced WP:SNOW -close for the above reasons by WeatherWriter.  MarioProtIV ( talk / contribs ) 03:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not intend to withdraw this; this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article.  List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 is suitable, and Draft:2024 Greenfield tornado probably would be as well; this is not.   The concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" that conflates every weather event across 2000 miles for 8 days is not supported by the sources.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 03:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your ! vote has been noted.  You believe the article's content should not exist, meaning you are challenging the notability of it, more or less over the idea that it is a "tornado outbreak sequence" name, which could easily be fixed with splits and requested moved.  I do appreciate you clarifying that your deletion reason isn't strictly the name "tornado outbreak sequence" but rather " this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article. " The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Walsh90210 : If I may ask, why do you oppose the idea of splitting this into multiple tornado outbreak articles?  The idea of "tornado outbreaks" are supported by the sources ( "A deadly tornado outbreak..." [48] Also, it is very obvious that there were several tornadoes across the United States during that timeframe.  Why are you opposed to something like "May 19-27 severe storms" or even splitting it up into individual events like the sources do (i.e. Tornado outbreak of May 19, 2024 , Tornado outbreak of May 20, 2024 , ect..) or renaming it to "severe storms" when sources use it more.  For example, "The May 19, 2024 Severe Weather Event" as named by the U.S. government.  I am asking the question, because your arguing that none of the information should be on Wikipedia, yet also saying there are 99 RS sources for it.  I just provided a couple of RS sources, helping prove why the content is notable.  That is more what I am asking.  Are you challenging the exact term "tornado outbreak sequence" or the content in general?  That is actually unclear here.  Specifying that would be helpful.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Primarily the term "tornado outbreak sequence" ( which I hopefully have criticized enough already ); I am not claiming that none of this content should be on Wikipedia in any form.   Some of the content might be reasonable for a stand-alone article (though the various WP:MILL weather bulletins don't count for GNG), other content might be reasonable at the existing article List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 .   A blank-and-redirect to List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 would still require an AFD discussion.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 04:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Walsh90210 : I promise, my last reply to you/in this AfD.  To note, no a "blanking" does not require an AfD.  See Wikipedia:Merging .  The only instances for AfD are when it directly meets the deletion policy , specifically one or more of the "reasons for deletion" .  AfD should be used when the nominator feels the content should not be on Wikipedia at all.  Based on what you have described so far, you really should not have used AfD (as I and other editors in here now) have stated.  Merge discussions, split discussions, renaming discussions, or just a general talk page discussion were all very much valid options.  For a simple term, such as "tornado outbreak sequence", that doesn't meet any of the deletion reasons.  The only real actual valid deletion reason you partially mentioned was that it may not meet the notability guidelines.  In short, for this specific AfD, that is the only thing really being looked at by editors, whether it passes those deletion reasons.  Now that 3 other editors have also someone stated a similar thing (i.e. keep the content, discussion for "tornado outbreak sequence" should occur elsewhere), I would honestly recommend withdrawing the AfD and then starting either a merge discussion ( WP:MERGE ), a renaming discussion ( WP:MOVE ), a split discussion ( WP:SPLIT ) or just a general talk page discussion to see what other editors think should occur next ( Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 ).  Wikipedia isn't a vote and discussions are based on the merits of comments and reasonings, but hopefully you can also see what others are saying.  Very short summary: Your concern is valid and should be addressed, just you happen to pick the one process that isn't for addressing that type of concern.  Any of the things I mentioned above are absolutely perfect for discussing that issue.  But not a full-on deletion discussion.  I won't comment in this again, and you are welcome to keep the AfD open, but as an editor, I would highly recommend withdrawing the AfD and starting one of the four processes above.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rather obviously keep , as a noteworthy event or sequence of events.   There might be grounds to consider splitting the article if the sources don't support treating the events together based either on causal relationship or proximity in time and location, or some combination of the two; but that would not be grounds for deletion.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per P Aculeius.  If RS doesn't support tying all this RS material together, split or remove parts that don't fit with an RS-based theme.  This should have been an editing exercise discussed on the article's talk page rather than coming here.  Stefen Tower s among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment , Canada , Alabama , Arkansas , Colorado , Georgia (U.S. state) , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Minnesota , Missouri , Nebraska , North Carolina , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Tennessee , Texas , Virginia , West Virginia ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Article is well research with almost a hundred sources, and details a pretty significant event, thus WP:N .  — Mjks28 ( talk ) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think it is far preferred to group a handful of back to back tornado outbreaks together in this manner for ease of access and because while there are multiple outbreaks covered sometimes drawing the line of when one outbreak ends and the next begins can be difficult, would constitute original research, and doing so lies outside the purposes of Wikipedia.  DJ Cane (he/him) ( Talk ) 13:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  This article seems to be a well-researched, well-sourced, and significant event which definitely does deserve to be an article, let alone content on here at all.  /srs Thanks, NorthStarMI .  ( Talk in the galaxy ) 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – That's literally how these types of articles are stringed together.  They always have been that way and always will be (probably).  Poodle23 ( talk ) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Auto keep I'm not going to even grace this with an answer.  Chess Eric 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the continued contempt and refusal by "weather" editors to acknowledge that the concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" appears to be something they made up is the reason I continue to refuse to withdraw this AFD.   If some uninvolved admin wants to close this in lieu of a discussion at some other forum (and starts that discussion procedurally), they can.   But I stand by the claim that this (and, other similar) titles should be expunged from Wikipedia.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 16:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I gotta break my promise of not replying again for this new comment.  “Contempt and refusal” to acknowledge that “we” made it up?  Yeah…this is very much a time you should back away from the discussion , since we didn’t make it up ( [49] ).  Now, if I may have a moment for a joke comment (seeing how it is obvious which way this WP:1AM AfD is going.  If “we” made it up , then that would mean the Wikimedia Foundation controls the Storm Prediction Center and National Severe Storms Laboratory .  But wait!  Since those are U.S. government agencies…that would mean…Wikipedia controls the U.S. government!  :O!  Conspiracy Theory Time!  (Now my fun time is over…I’m actually done here since this is a very much one-against-many AfD).  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 16:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was one paper 21 years ago that nobody followed up on because the idea that tornadoes 1000 miles apart and 8 days apart are the same "event" is stupid.   That's it for external usage of the term.   The Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, Wikipedia-content books, and "fiction" wikis.   The Google Scholar results have 23 total hits for "tornado outbreak sequence" (many of which refer to Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence , which is a "tornado outbreak" from a single storm).   This.  Is.  Not.  A. Single.  Event.  and you continue to insist (erroneously) that it is.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, I would be sympathetic to this line of argument if it were re-structured as a discussion (RFC, etc.) about splitting events like this instead of a Hail Mary AFD.  Penitentes ( talk ) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if this was made up by wikieditors then why does the nws uses the titles for other sequences?  67.58.252.227 ( talk ) 02:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep AfD is clearly not the first step here.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 19:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per the reasons noted by WeatherWriter, Mjks28, DJ Cane, and other editors above.  Chris Wx 🌀 ( talk - contribs ) 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - This article is certainly is notable and certainly qualifies for its own article.  The only thing that would even be remotely necessary if the nominator’s rationale is correct would be to split the article.  But even then, deleting it is not the way to do it.  West Virginia WXeditor ( talk ) 19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - The event is notable, and looking at both Google Scholar and Google Books, the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence" is used in scientific settings.  Most recently, it appears in "An Introduction to Severe Storms and Hazardous Weather" by Dr. Jeffrey B. Halverson, a climate and storm scientist, which was published in 2024 by Routledge.  He did write that they are "sometimes called simply an outbreak".  The ISBN for anyone who wants to investigate is 978-1032384245.  Since the issue does seem to be regarding the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence", there are more appropriate venues than AFD to handle this as other users have noted.  CatharticHistorian ( talk ) 21:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep – Many have fleshed out the reasons to keep above, but to keep it short: It's well researched, cites good sources, this should not be the first step to write your grievances, and if you wanna get rid of this one then you should nominate every single other article that uses the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence," most notably Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011 , one of the worst sequences in modern history that was 6 days long.  Nobody's getting rid of that one, and thus this one is staying too.  SouthernDude297 ( talk ) 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention the fact that getting rid of everything that contains this blanket term would also imply getting rid of other infamous outbreak sequences such as the May 2019 tornado outbreak sequence which saw hundreds of twisters touch down.  West Virginia WXeditor ( talk ) 01:08, 26 June 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