2023 Little Rock tornado: Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 .  This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes).  In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes).  To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes.  The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS .  Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now.  As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment ,  and Arkansas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft?  This was unnecessary.  Chess Eric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ChessEric : If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace.  The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware.  With all that, this is more of a TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace).  Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace.  So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it.  Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened.  Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits.  The AfD was not the way to go.  Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet WP:Lasting .  I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though.  Chess Eric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article.  For reference this entire edit is a copyright violation.  Making it a draft again will not get rid of that.  The SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article.  That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird.  Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along.  Did they help?  Sure.  Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though?  Yes.  It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric .  Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado .  The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations.  The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur.  So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability.  This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023 .  We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article.  In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles.  Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado .  I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section.  The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed.  But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact.  A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak.  148.76.84.29 ( talk ) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK ) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations.  148.76.84.29 ( talk ) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK ) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here.  You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space.  Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow.  His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021 .  User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point.  99.196.129.143 ( talk ) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) ( SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks.  I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved.  Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.   Any thoughts from more independent editors?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  05:13, 27 April 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: no consensus