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
This redirect was accepted from this draft on 12 February 2022 by reviewer Skarmory (talk· contribs).
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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
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.
I'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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
