Talk:2014 Smithfield, New York tornado
Latest comment: 2 years ago by United States Man in topic Notability
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Tornadoes of 2014 Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Tornadoes of 2014 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2022. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
editI'll ping @Skarmory: here, since the moved this to mainspace, but I have doubts about the notability of this tornado. Since it was a short-lived rural event, even though it was a killer, seems rather WP:ROUTINE. It seems that it would be sufficient to just have a section at Tornadoes of 2014. Generally tornadoes don't get their own articles unless they produce a large death toll or cause major damage in a large town or city. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS: Hey! I checked out the sources, and they seem to be independent and show significant coverage, including one source which covered it five years later. If you want to merge it, I'm fine with that, but since the WP:NWEATHER guideline isn't policy in any way and is just an essay (and I don't fully understand what it means for tornadoes), I went with the normal notability route which it seemed to pass from my view; I did not see WP:ROUTINE, so I'll keep that in mind for the future. I'm not that used to the tornado areas of Wikipedia, so it could just be some unwritten policy I'm not aware of past WP:ROUTINE (which it might pass in my view but I'm not sure). Thanks for letting me know! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@TornadoLGS: Isn't this just the same problem we have with the recently made article for the 2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado? This article is not necessary.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: Yep. Turns out both articles were created as drafts by the same IP who is currently blocked for socking. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS: Wasn't blocked for socking when I accepted the draft; I won't object deletion in that case, though I would rather merge to the tornadoes in 2014 article rather than deletion of everything and then redirect it. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that much. I was just commenting on the connection between this and the other tornado mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- This should be deleted/merged per Wikiproject notability standards. United States Man (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that much. I was just commenting on the connection between this and the other tornado mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS: Wasn't blocked for socking when I accepted the draft; I won't object deletion in that case, though I would rather merge to the tornadoes in 2014 article rather than deletion of everything and then redirect it. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)