This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This redirect 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.
This redirect 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.
@
TornadoLGS,
ChessEric, and
TropicalAnalystwx13: Is this notable enough for an article? The tornado event most certainly is not, and the flooding aspect of this article only covers one line. The title is also horrid no matter whether "June 2021" is in the front or at the end. If a couple flooding deaths are grounds for an article, then we have a lot more articles to make all over the country.
United States Man (
talk)
00:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I was honestly thinking the same thing. It would be nice if we could find more information on it because it really should not even be here with the way it is now. I left it alone because I don't like to initialize conversation like this so I'm glad you bought it up.
ChessEric (
talk·contribs)
00:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
If there is enough coverage of the hailstorm to significantly expand it, and we could expand on the flooding aspect, this could be salvageable. But otherwise I agrre that this was not notable, and it's kind of a mess as it is.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
01:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason for deletion
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)
22:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
You should read the section above this one. As it stands, the article doesn't show the notability of the event, however, as stated above, the event is notable enough for an article. The article just needs a lot of improvements, not deletion.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
23:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
A $1.8 billion hailstorm isn’t gonna cut it. It needs a lot more sources reporting on the event to be notable, of which I can’t find any.
75.99.8.58 (
talk)
15:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, yes it will. With the article being expanded and changed to focus on the hailstorm, it will make it notable. The event had tons of news articles published about it just after the event happened as well.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Just pointing something out: Without the hailstorm aspect being included, this already has 21 sources. It passed through AfC as well. Once the hailstorm is included, there is 0 notability concerns.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
16:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Of the 21 references, 8 of them are literally reports of the tornadoes that touch down, and a few others are WP:ROUTINE storm recaps. Also at least one of the references should be from immediately after. Elijahandskip, please don’t ignore policies like WP:NOTNEWS.
75.99.8.58 (
talk)
16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move 24 December 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merge
As is, all are in agreement to merge, though exactly where, there is no unanimous agreement. Though only two non-IP four editors weighed in here, I note that previous notability concerns were brought up by at least four non-IP five other editors, and the past deletion discussion result was "weak keep". I would urge
Tails Wx and
TheAustinMan to agree on a merge target and then be BOLD in implementing the merge. starship.paint (
RUN)14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merge... but where? – This particular event lacks
sustained coverage or coverage of any
lasting effects, so a merge seems appropriate. However, is
Tornadoes of 2021 the best target for such a merge? The tornadoes were evidently not the most consequential part of this storm, but the aggregate
US$1.9 billion in damage is rather impressive. Is there a general page regarding severe weather in 2021, perhaps
Weather of 2021 or something more tailored, that might serve information about these non-tornadic effects more appropriately? –
TheAustinMan(
Talk ⬩
Edits)22:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus discussion
@
Starship.paint: — I’m not necessarily challenging your decision, but the consensus is, in reality, only two valid editors (Tails Wx and The Austin Man). Also, the discussion was opened (almost certainly) by a DUCK LTA. 208.253.89.50 Is a confirmed Andrew5 SOCK account & Andrew 5 has wanted this article deleted/merged in the past. In the Reason for deletion section above, 47.23.40.14 (opener) & 75.99.8.58 were blocked Andrew5 socks. 108.58.71.234 was only active on February 10th (basically on this article) & they fit perfectly for
WP:LTA/A5, so chances are that is a DUCK Sock as well. I ain’t taking it to SPI since SPI Andrew5 IPs only are DUCKED blocked if they are active recently. You might want to amend your closing statement since this discussion was confirmed tainted by Andrew5 + a second suspected tainting. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply