Jump to content

Talk:2019 Dayton tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability table

[edit]

If you don't mind, I'm going to use this draft as a non-neutral way of seeing if my AfD/C table is effective, and it may be helpful to the article itself (although you can feel free to remove this if you don't want it). Formerly MemeGod, EF5 19:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EF5's Tornado AfD Table
Criteria no. Sub-criteria Description Pass? Fail? Comments
1 (Coverage) 1a Any coverage? checkY Here, here and here are good examples.
1b Any significant coverge? (e.g. CNN or the NYT) checkY NPR, ResearchGate and USA Today.
1c Any lasting coverage past 6 months after the tornado? checkY See above links.
2 (Strength) 2a Was the tornado EF0-EF2?
2b Was the tornado EF3?
2c Was the tornado EF4? checkY
2d Was the tornado EF5?
3 (Damage) 3a Did the tornado kill at least one person? checkY Death is indirect.
3b Did the tornado injure at least one person? checkY 166 injuries, high count for an EF4 tornado
3c Did the tornado cause monetary damage totaling over $200,000 USD? checkY $500 million (2019 USD) in damges, seems notable in this aspect
4 (Aftermath) 4a Did the tornado significantly damage a town? checkY To be fair, Dayton is huge.
4b Any notable deaths? checkY
5 (Content) 5a Is the article not a CFORK of an existing section? Draft is still under construction.
5b Can the content not be easily merged into a section? Draft is still under construction.
5c Is the article longer than the page on its respective outbreak? Draft is still under construction.
5d Is the article a GA, FA or has recently been featured on DYK? Draft is still under construction.
6 (Overall) 6a Are at least five of these criterion met, with exceptions made if needed? checkY
Final verdict: Pass: Meets GNG, LASTING and SUSTAINED. Would likely survive a potential AfD discussion.