# Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado

This article should not be created right now due to the lack of information that is available for the tornado. The draft at present is using mostly information copied from Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024, poorly-sourced/very preliminary information, and some speculations. I suggest work continues at the parent tornado outbreak sequence article for now, and if more information, evidence of stand-alone notability comes in that calls for this tornado to have its own article, then work can resume on it. Thanks, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Individual tornado articles do not need to be considered for any tornadoes during the outbreak sequence at least for several months. After the finalized NOAA NCEI reports release, re-assess for lasting impacts and lasting coverage. Until then, I do not support this becoming an article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, in 99% of these cases a separate article for the tornado is not needed if there already is own for the outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Eh. I don’t really agree to much with that. My personal take is that if the tornado and/or the exact locations hit by the tornado is discussed and mentioned over a year into the future, it might warrant a stand-alone article from the outbreak. For instance, if the recovery-aspect from a tornado is specifically covered by multiple RS, that might help support lasting coverage/lasting impacts for that specific tornado. Random hypothetical, let’s say an editor worked on a tornado draft for a while and got it to maybe 15%+ byte size from an outbreak article of 80 tornadoes. That should probably be broke out at that point, since a merge would start making a tornado from the outbreak the primary topic of the article, rather than the outbreak as a whole.
When a tornado starts becoming the primary topic of an article, we have two choices: Stand-alone or rename. Consensus was against a stand-alone for the 2020 Nashville, Tennessee tornado, however, consensus did support a full renaming to the 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak, since the Nashville tornado itself took up 20% of the entire article size, compared to the other 14 tornadoes in the outbreak.
So my personal take is reassessing some of the more notable tornadoes in outbreaks over a year later to see what lasting coverage/impacts/town-specific recovery is happening. 5-20% (dependent on outbreak size) is too much for a single tornado, unless that tornado is the primary topic of the article (as cases like 2020 Nashville or 1953 Waco tornado outbreak. Again, just my personal take on it, since at that size, it isn’t about the “outbreak” and starts becoming about the “tornado”, content size wise. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter Just by chance, is there an article about stand-alone tornado article criteria? I found one on outbreaks themselves, but not on on single tornadoes. This one may definitely meet at least some of that criteria due to extreme damage, EF4 potential and just overall violence. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@MemeGod27: It isn't that it might meet criteria, but rather that there is one point of WP:NEVENT that is not met: Lasting impacts/Lasting coverage. Also the outbreak criteria, (presuming you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado) is very outdated and honestly probably need reassessed anyway.
There was a very similar and actually decent sized discussion that occurred following the 2023 Clarksville tornado -- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Clarksville tornado. Despite that single tornado's info being over 27% of the entire outbreak article content, the stand-alone article was considered a WP:CONTENTFORK by a community consensus, only because it was created a few days after the tornado. As sort of described above, my personal assessment of policy is that if there is lasting coverage & lasting impacts over a year after a tornado, it might warrant a stand-alone article, but only if I or someone else just justifiably say the size of the tornado's content starts to overshadow the overall outbreak. At 27%, I would highly support a split for the 2023 Clarksville tornado, however, the community consensus decided that even at that size, a split is not necessary. So, check in a year. If you find lasting coverage (i.e. more than 1 news article or academic studies) specifically regarding the specific tornado or specific town damage/recovery, then you could consider maybe creating a stand-alone article. Until then though, any split would be considered a content-fork (duplicate content) from the outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
P.S. The answer to your question is just passing WP:NEVENT. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter It's now over 22,000 bytes. I don't know how long the info section in the main article is, but this is ready length and structure-wise, as far as I can see. The 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado is a GA, and this draft is longer and honestly more notable & deadly than that. Thanks!MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is very well written. Yshehru72727 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the problem, it's the notability. I don't know if it is notable enough. MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like its pretty notable. Went throught a city, causing many casualties, and major damage to several buildings. I feel like this draft is ready to be an article. Yshehru72727 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
That's true. Let me discuss with others to see, as the notability factor is extremely sensitive. MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
You can still move it to article space if you want, feel free to MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@MemeGod27: & Yshehru72727 I am tired of debating it, so consider me neutral on the idea (not opposed but also not supporting it). You can move it into mainspace if you wish as any editor is free to create any article. I will not be the editor to nominate it for deletion or redraftify it. Do I think it should be in mainspace less than a week after the tornado? No. But, like I said, I am tired of debating. Just note, if this was moved into mainspace and later re-draftified or nominated for deletion, you need to be able to justify (with evidence being provided) how it passes every point of WP:NEVENT & how it is not a WP:CONTENTFORK from the outbreak sequence article, as I would suspect those would be the reasonings for possible redrafticiation or nomination for deletion.
But, like I said, I will not be that editor and will not try to stop this from becoming a stand-alone article. If you think it passes WP:LASTING's criteria and policy, go for it. In short, I am Dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass (the saying for WP:DTS). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks so much. Looking over it now, it does pass the main guidelines of WP:NEVENT:
Lasting effect: This tornado heavily damaged an entire town, the aftershocks of which may be seen for months and potentially years to come.
Diverse sources: I have seen news channels dedicated to weather extensively discuss this, but the BBC, Fox, really every major new channel talk about this tornado.
GEOSCOPE: Again, heavily damaged an entire town, very significant for that area.
Duration of coverage: This tornado is still being talked about as more comes out, will most likely be talked about/studied in the future as it was very unusual.
I'm gonna go ahead and make the article, and am ready for whatever backlash this gets (seeing some of the people who are in the WikiWeather community, I am 100% getting harassed about this, not naming names) Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I will get to the copy-editing today, I'll try to get it done before 10:00 AM EST.  MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So some big issues with this article:
1.) The entire latter half of the tornado path paragraph is unsourced.
2.) Intensity rating are being assigned to specific buildings, even though damage points haven't been added to the DAT. PLEASE do not tell me you are assigning your own ratings and/or guessing...
3.) The "Damage" section contains information that should just be in the path summary section.
4.) There is next to zero info from the NWS or DAT. This seems to be entirely put together with news articles and social media posts. That is not acceptable.
Basically, this was made waaaay too early. We have to wait until official damage survey info is published before we can make an article like this. NWS Norman always takes forever, and we have to wait for them to finish and publish everything. I'm basically going to have to re-write this whole thing for it to meet Wikipedia's standards.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Still working on it
I'm not adding my own summaries, I can delete whatever the hell you want but EF3 damage was observed in the specific areas that these buildings were destroyed.
You have an actually good point for the Damage section
Lemme fix the NWS DAT really quick with something called a "citation"
MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Everything has been added, heck I can add 100 citations if you want MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
re #1: You are not allowed to publish unsourced information whether you are "working on it" or not.
re #2: You cannot mention intensity ratings for specific areas and buildings unless the DAT specifically mentions it, which it currently does not. What you are doing is guessing by describing areas of damage as EF3 just because that was the max intensity, when the NWS has not yet specified where the EF3 damage occurred. I saw you change the EF2 mentions to EF3 too, so nice try.
re #3: I know.
re:#4: It doesn't matter if you cite the DAT, because NWS Norman has not added damage points to the DAT yet. There is no information yet, and you can't get specific about the EF scale stuff until there is.
Also it isn't the number of citations that matters, it is the quality. The number of quality, reliable sources you have is currently ZERO because only two exist: Official NWS survey writeups and the DAT. There is currently neither, and no matter how many news articles you embed, it will not make the article better. I told you yesterday, that we CAN"T USE NEWS ARTICLES AS PRIMARY SOURCES. Why did you not listen?
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

First off "I know" is the wildest response I have ever heard to something, maybe be polite when talking to someone? And how are ANY news sources not reliable? ArcGIS is where most of the tornado summary part came from, which when lining it up with damage reports, Google Earth, and official drone and building images released, can accurately display structural damages (but obviously not EF scale). Also, FOX Weather and multiple other of these sources are checked off on the reliability chart.  Also, if you are so insistent on calling me a newcomer, then don't bite me! Wikipedia has rules, and whether you think that are of quality or not, they are there. Rules are to be followed, and if a source is reliable as per community concensus, then it can be used. Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
You can't can't publish this without DAT damage points, and that isn't up for debate. I'm not harrasing you, I am holding you accountable, and you are getting upset over it. I will continue to revert whatever doesn't meet wiki quality standards. Not backing down this time.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
"Let's hold these young overzealous editors accountable" -TornadoInformation12 MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
OK y'all, talk to someone outside of this group. This is not even slightly productive.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Incivility will only impede productivity. Please assume good faith. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because (I think this is very clearly a notable event, and the citations look fine to me. Perhaps we could add more information as it comes out, instead of deleting now. The article does need some copyediting, but so do plenty of other articles that also need this. I think that the disputing parties need to try to come to a consensus and maybe bring in a third party. ) --Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a note, I need to sincerely seperate myself from TornadoInformation12 in any way possible, is there a way to block me from interacting with him? I can't be neutral or do literally anything productive when me and him interact, and honestly it deals a toll on the encyclopedia as a whole. MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk to an admin, perhaps @Joyous!. Mostly, I think this needs a third party of some sort to take a look at it, because both sides are getting a little to heated for this to be productive.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thank you so much. And just to clarify, I 100% understand and agree with your concerns. Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because this meets WP:NEVENT and WP:GEOSCOPE under the following criteria
1. WP:NEVENT The event has significantly damaged an entire town, 1 or more fatalities have been confirmed This town will be damaged for years, and over 7 million dollars in damages have been reported.
2. WP:GEOSCOPE: The event, as stated previously, meets all GEOSCOPE criteria: -The event has had a significant impact on the mid-sized city of Sulphur, and and other needed explanation can be explained with full clarity.
Also with the "unreliable sourced" claim made by TornadoInformation12, these 40+ sources are sufficient under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources community concensus.
Note: The user who proposed this deletion has constantly harrased me for over a month now, see Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1-3, 2024 for more info. MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This has to do with sourcing and quality, not notability. Don't twist the narrative. Also, again I am not harassing you, I am holding you accountable for work that does not meet quality standards. You just think you are getting harassed because you are getting upset at the situation.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation11

Sure, whatever. I'm stepping away from this situation until a higher-up gets involved, because clearly you think you have some sort of power over article creation and deletion. MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Probably a good call. Take a break. There is no power trip at play here, simply a desire to keep non-encyclopedic work off of this website.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Since this has been a controversial article, I'll be using my AfD/C table to assess notability:

Seems notable. EF5 15:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If you don't move it to main space I will myself. I have plenty of articles that arn't as well sourced. You're fine.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: Something got messed up when you moved it, the talk page is still under the "draft:" namespace. :) EF5 18:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the ping! TiggerJay (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)