Wikipedia:Notability and tornadoes

An F4 tornado in Saugatuck, Michigan, 1956

All tornadoes receive local coverage, that's just part of a tornado. They hit town, cities, cause widespread destruction... right? Not always. Some tornadoes may hit cities, cause destruction, and then be forgotten by the media. But that's off the point. Since all tornadoes receive coverage, does that make them all notable? Well, not exactly, it's complicated. Here's a list of policies that relate to tornado notability, in order of significance.

Comment: Bolded things are key takeaways and are generally important.

Questions to ask yourself before writing a tornado article:

• Does the tornado have coverage?
• Will the tornado have future coverage?
• Is the tornado recent, or old?
• And finally, is there significant sourcing to base its notability off of?

The below criteria will help explain why these questions should be asked, when they apply, and why they are significant when determining tornado notability.

Tornadoes and INDEPTH

Parent policy: WP:INDEPTH

By far the most important notability policy to take into account when determining the notability of a tornado is INDEPTH. Every other policy below can be rendered moot if INDEPTH is not met. When determining if a tornado meets INDEPTH, you should ask yourself three questions.

• Is there any coverage surrounding the tornado? If there's no coverage surrounding the tornado, that be a local news channel or other reliable source, then drop the idea about writing an article for the tornado. It just simply isn't notable, and likely will never be notable, unless the media starts going a writing spree about it.
• Is there any significant coverage surrounding the tornado? This is more than just your average run-of-the-mill local "tornado touches down in ____ County" story. Significant coverage is the tornado being mentioned in sources like The New York Times, ABC News, Reuters, NBC, BBC, CNN, etc. You get the point. If there's no significant coverage surrounding a tornado, then don't write about it, it likely wouldn't survive an AfD discussion.
• Is there any significant coverage surrounding the tornado? This is more than just your average run-of-the-mill local "tornado touches down in ____ County" story. Significant coverage is the tornado being mentioned in sources like The New York Times, ABC News, Reuters, NBC, BBC, CNN, etc. You get the point. If there's no significant coverage surrounding a tornado, then don't write about it.

Tornadoes and TOOSOON

Parent policy: WP:TOOSOON

You may be writing about a tornado too soon. You can just sum that up as writing about a tornado before finalized information comes out, and before the above policy can be proven. We're going to use the Sulphur article as an example:

• 2024 Sulphur tornado - As above, this article was created in April 2024 and was almost immediately sent to AfD, with TOOSOON being a leading "delete" argument. The Sulphur tornado didn't even have a finalized rating when the article was made, and as such looked like a bunch of speculative information, with a lot of "+" at the end of numbers, including the fatalities and injuries, which we don't want. If you're thinking about writing about a tornado, first consult the above policy, and only then should you ask yourself, Is it too soon? One of the biggest reasons why LASTING is put above TOOSOON is that to prove LASTING coverage, it can't have been too recent.

Tornadoes and LASTING

Parent policy: WP:LASTING

General (and unwritten) consensus is that if a tornado doesn't have lasting coverage, it isn't notable. It could have the entire world at grip, writing non-stop about it, but if nothing actually comes of it, say... six months after the tornado, then don't write about it. A few examples:

• 2024 Sulphur tornado - In April 2024, an article was created about this tornado, which ran right through downtown Sulphur, Oklahoma. Now the article would be sent to AfD, and most of the deletion rationales were related to WP:TOOSOON (more on that below). But that's not why I'm bringing this up, I'm bringing this up because there was no lasting coverage. Remember, if there's no lasting coverage, don't write about it.
• 2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado - Also in April 2024, an article was created about this tornado. This one, which hit Blair, Omaha and Elkhorn, Nebraska, was also sent to AfD. The main difference is that there was lasting coverage, which proved it's notability. If a tornado has lasting coverage (not lasting impact, that's for another essay), then write about it.

This policy is still largely under discussion, but by all means is still important when determining tornado notability. It does have it's flaws, though, as some recent old tornadoes don't have recent coverage (the 1883 Rochester tornado being an example). I'd say it's only neccesary for tornadoes that happened in 2022-2024.

Tornadoes and GEOSCOPE

Parent policy: WP:GEOSCOPE

Here's a good one. Did the tornado you're planning on write about actually go anywhere? Was it just a dust swirl in the desert, traveling 100-or-so yards? Or 100-or-so miles? Did it hit Manhattan? Manhattan, Kansas? These are all things to take into account when examining a tornado's geographic impact. Some tornadoes don't travel far, but can cause extreme damage. A good example of this is the 2011 Joplin tornado, which moved right through a sizable town in Missouri but wasn't on the ground for long. On the flip side, the Tri-State tornado traveled for over 200 miles, hitting numerous small towns along it's path. How long a tornado is on the ground doesn't always make it notable, however. Put damage over track length when examining notability. If the tornado was on the ground for 100 miles but didn't hit anything, then it likely isn't notable. The same can't be said for damage; a tornado can still be notable is it causes heavy damage along a very short track.

Tornadoes and SUSTAINED

Parent policy: WP:SUSTAINED

Tornadoes usually don't get sustained coverage, as many outbreaks such as the March 31 – April 1, 2023 one have largely been forgotten by media. A tornado doesn't need to have sustained coverage to be notable. Some examples:

• 2021 Western Kentucky tornado: The tornado itself, or the cities it hit, don't receive major coverage since the event happened over three years ago. However, the tornado is still notable because it meets the three criteria that come before this.
• 2020 Nashville tornado: This tornado didn't receive major or lasting coverage, hence why it is still a redirect to a section. While SUSTAINED doesn't have to be met, it should for more recent events.
• 2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado: Wow, this tornado really demonstrates everything tornado notability should be! The tornado received lasting and near-constant coverage in the months after the event, and as such is notable.

While having sustained coverage can definitely help in an AfD discussion, I wouldn't say that it proves (or disproves) notability regarding tornadoes.

Tornadoes and NTORNADO

Parent policy: WP:NTORNADO

Funny enough, we have our own [official] tornado notability policy, but it doesn't go nearly as in-depth as this does. I will typically disregard all points made at NTORNADO, since it doesn't address the major sourcing complications that come with writing about tornadoes. Statements like A tornado that is considered “rare” by meteorologists can be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but not always really give me problems, because this is completely moot in regards to sourcing. I typically ignore all rules when it comes down to using NTORNADO, as it's highly flawed. An example:

• 2022 Andover tornado: Say we're just using NTORNADO to determine the notability of this tornado. Firstly, this tornado wasn't "rare" or otherwise special; it happened in Kansas during the month of April, typically when tornadoes happen. Fails point one. As above, the tornado isn't special or rare, so it also fails point two. The tornado didn't break any records or was very strong, so fails point three. Point four is completely irrelevant to a tornado article, and as such won't even be part of this example. By all means, this tornado should be non-notable, right? Wrong. Significant sourcing exists to establish this tornado's notability, and it has an article. The entire concept of NTORNADO can be rendered practically useless if you take into account sourcing issues.

Tornadoes and rating

Parent policy articles: Fujita Scale, Enhanced Fujita Scale

This is likely a controversial point-of-view on my (EF5) part, but this needs to be brought up as a largely unaddressed issue within the WikiProject Weather community. Rating does not equal notability. This has been long used in AfD debates (and even by me in the past) to try to delete articles about tornadoes, hurricanes, and really any other weather phenomena you can imagine. The issue with tornado ratings is that they have zero correlation to the notability of a tornado, and thus should never be used when determining whether you should write about a tornado or not. Some examples:

• 1989 Coldenham tornado: This F1 tornado practically grazes the bottom of the Fujita Scale, one of 16,883 to hit the United States before the adoption of the Enhanced Fujita Scale in 2007. Despite being weak, and by all means "non-notable" in that aspect, the tornado killed nine people, all schoolchildren. Because of this, it is notable and as such has an article. There's a misconception that a tornado has to be violent (F/EF4+) to have an article, which is by no means true.
• 2021 Bowling Green tornadoes: One of these two tornadoes reached an intensity of EF3 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, and by no means was violent. Depsite this, it has an article and is relatively well-known within the community. Why is this? The tornado is notable with sourcing, not rating. I'll be bold and even say that a tornado's rating should be completely disregarded when writing about it, because clearly it doesn't matter.

Chart

For those who zoomed through this and are looking for a sort of "nutshell" chart, here's one. The policies further to the left are ones you should use the least when determining notability (Rating, WP:NTORNADO, WP:SUSTAINED) and they point to ones you should use the most (WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:LASTING, WP:TOOSOON, WP:INDEPTH). The most significant by far is WP:INDEPTH.

Rating -> WP:NTORNADO -> Other policy -> WP:SUSTAINED -> WP:GEOSCOPE -> WP:LASTING -> WP:TOOSOON -> WP:INDEPTH

See also

• User:EF5/My tornado criteria