Talk:2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2024. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Weather Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Iowa / Nebraska Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa.
	Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Low-importance).

Still notable?

Running the table, since it's now been seven months after the tornado. E_F⁵ 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EF5's Tornado AfD Table
Criteria no.	Sub-criteria	Description	Pass?	Fail?	Comments
1 (Coverage)	1a	Any coverage?	Y		FOX Weather, KMTV, KETV
	1b	Any significant coverge? (e.g. CNN or the NYT)		Y	None that I could find, the only one I could find that could make this tornado potentially meet the criteria is FOX Weather.
	1c	Any lasting coverage past 6 months after the tornado?		Y	Most recent I could find was this KOLN article from July 2024, only 3 months after the tornado.
2 (Strength)	2a	Was the tornado EF0-EF2?
	2b	Was the tornado EF3?
	2c	Was the tornado EF4?	Y
	2d	Was the tornado EF5?
3 (Damage)	3a	Did the tornado kill at least one person?		Y	Zero deaths.
	3b	Did the tornado injure at least one person?	Y		Four injuries.
	3c	Did the tornado cause monetary damage totaling over $200,000 USD?	Y		$8 million (2024 USD) in damages.
4 (Aftermath)	4a	Did the tornado significantly damage a town?		Y	Hit several towns, but didn't significantly damage any.
4 (Aftermath)	4b	Any notable deaths?		Y
5 (Content)	5a	Is the article not a CFORK of an existing section?	Y		Quick-fail if criterion is not met
	5b	Can the content not be easily merged into a section?	Y		Quick-fail if criterion is not met
	5c	Is the article longer than the page on its respective outbreak?	Y		Usually a quick-pass
	5d	Is the article a GA, FA or has recently been featured on DYK?		Y	Usually a quick-pass
6 (Overall)	6a	Are at least five of these criterion met, with exceptions made if needed?		Y	If at least 1b, 3b, 3c, 5c and 1c are met, then a pass is warranted. If not, then a fail is warranted. Exceptions can be made at my discretion.
Final verdict:		Fail: Does not meet SUSTAINED or LASTING. I would highly suggest that recent references be found, and if none are found then the article should be AfD'd.

Here's your lasting coverage: "It's still not over", from a volunteer assisting debris cleanup in Elkhorn less than a week ago. This is what I'd consider lasting coverage at this phase - I'd advise against an AfD like this until at least one year after the tornado strikes. But, perhaps we have different ideas of lasting coverage. Departure– (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't see that. Let's wait a few more months, then see. I still have my doubts about the notability of this tornado, ,"it's an EF4" isn't a valid point to have an article for. E_F⁵ 15:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think LASTING is best used as a deletion argument at least one year after the tornado strikes. Elkhorn and Greenfield both had big news bursts in June when they were rated as EF4 and 318'd, and both definitely had enough coverage for an article then, but next year things may change, especially for the Elkhorn article. Departure– (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That too. I still don't see SUSTAINED coverage, however, which is a major issue. One news burst isn't sustained. E_F⁵ 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it isn't sustained but it is remembered and its impacts are being felt well after it occurred. There's enough sources to warrant an article and enough secondary ones to tell that it's a notable topic. For instance, the 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado hasn't gotten any coverage at all this year but it's still obviously notable, and I don't see why that argument has to be restricted to the most notorious tornadoes. Departure– (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]