Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was weak keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated on behalf of IP user 47.23.40.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

This should be deleted due to poor notability. Tornado outbreak is well below notable and floods also arent really notable, plus is only one line. Any salvageable content can go to Tornadoes of 2021#June 18-19, but I doubt even that is needed. 47.23.40.14 (talk)

Note: Prior notability discussions on articles's talk page. Also small discussion on AfD talk page in request of processing this nomination. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As stated on the various talk page discussions, (1): It needs to be expanded to include the hailstorm that occurred from this system, which NOAA reports caused $1.8 billion in damage. (2): It got accepted through AfC. (3): The article, without the hailstorm, already has 21 sources, so there should be no reason that notability should be questioned once it is included. I am also bringing up the point that the user who requested the AfD had only a handful of edits and attempted to discredit my reasons by bringing up edits I made over 6 months ago. That is just a little suspicious, especially given the recent WP Weather problems at Arbcom. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now:Article was just recently created. I'd say wait to give it chance it get more info for reference and notability. Saying an article should only have high notability and/or high amount of references to be created is limiting what articles can exist to what is well known and what already has all its info.--Halls4521 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously assuming that the hailstorm, floods and tornadoes are all related? That needs a source to back it up or it’s WP:OR.12.119.134.66 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source, NOAA's billion-dollar disasters, which is linked in the article and where the $1.8 billion damage came from. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.weather.gov/ind/june18192021severe 96.91.3.165 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is every storm report from NWS Indianapolis, so it does not represent the entire event, which spanned more than a single NWS office. NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather Events is the link which states “Ohio Valley Hail Storms”, “2021-06-17 to 2021-06-18”, $1.8. That is this storm system, so a storm system which caused $1,800,000,000 (2021 USD) in damage is 100% notable for a Wikipedia article. Important to note the Ohio Valley spans 12 states. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source to prove that the hailstorm was related to the floods, which it probably was but again, needs a source. Also, $1.8 billion isn’t automatically notable enough. We don’t have an article on the 2017 Colorado hailstorm despite causing $2.3 billion. All your arguments are hinging on one point that has been refuted. --96.91.3.165 (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know the 2017 Colorado hailstorm doesn't have an article. I will get to creating that actually. You do know Wikipedia isn't perfect right? We (some WikiProject of Weather members) just became aware in an entire different discussion that at least one violent tornado was completely forgotten from 1990, and it was one that an NWS office commented it could have been an EF5 on the EF-scale. The fact one topic doesn't have an article has 0 difference whether this should have an article or not. It just means no one had gotten around to creating it. Almost every billion-dollar disaster has some article or is apart of an article (ex: 8 of the 9 already listed for 2022 have articles.) As I stated below, I will 100% be recreating this article if it is deleted, so honestly, the AfD is just preventing WP:FIXIT from being able to happen with useless debates. I haven't seen a single actual reason why this is not directly notable for Wikipedia, rather, that the article just shouldn't exist. I would recommend you narrow your choice down to whether (1): $1.8 billion hailstorm just isn't notable for Wikipedia, which could spire to say some other weather disasters that caused less damage (like the Tornado outbreak of March 29–31, 2022 which caused $500 million less in damage than this hailstorm in question) OR (2) whether you just don't want this article in mainspace talking about tornadoes instead of the hailstorm, which just hasn't been added in yet because of this long and painful AfD debate. Please let me know which it is. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado outbreak from March is different because it had over 70 tornadoes and caused fatalities. If notability can be demonstrated, it can be kept. However, as it is, it simply cannot stand. This article is such a mess that it should be WP:TNT. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to Tornadoes of 2021#June 18-19, but do not keep. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just copy/pasted this into a userpage draft and if this is deleted, I plan to rework the article to make sure it includes the hailstorm then resubmit through AfC. Knowing it was accepted the first time, there is no reason it would not be again, so just saying this AfD will do nothing in the long run but prevent a WP:FIXIT as suggested in my previous comments. Man, I seem to not get a break from people always calling out my past from over a year ago, but either way, the nominator was/is most likely a troll from my past since one of their first edits was pulling up my past as a way to discredit my comments and they only have ever edited on the day this was nominated. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for broader participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 17:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (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.