Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado tornado

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh 17:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tornado tornado

nominated for speedy as 'Nonsense, and what little non-nonsense there is already exists under Tornado' but that's not meeting CSD. -Doc (?) 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ridiculous nonsense. --Hoovernj 01:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Revise The article does not conform to neutral reporting standards; however, undoubtably some of the information is "good," and it could probably be rewritten and merged with the existing entry for "Tornado." This may have potential to make a meaninful contribution to the subject. --Malecasta 03:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to target Tornado. There is some good info, in particular some images. Then what to do with Tornado tornado? It should be deleted but it's contributions should not disappear, either. --RichG 04:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. More careful review reveals not much salvagable, photos unsourced, so probably delete.--RichG 11:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete source is dubious. All of the images are unsourced and untagged. --Rogerd 04:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if sources can be confirmed, which I doubt, as much looks plagiarised from uncited sources; otherwise, delete. - Sensor 05:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Rogerd. Some nice photos if they could be sourced. The information is not in a readily usable format and an article on tornadoes exists already.--Gaff 06:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Try to trace photos and see if they are usable. Ganymead 14:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, some useful information. Trollderella 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge With Tornado especially the Photos. If photos have no source Delete --JAranda | watz sup 19:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All the information here is already in tornado, and I suspect some sections of this article (and especially some of the pictures) are copyvios. --Carnildo 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense --Doc (?) 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think there is anything that can be sensibly merged so Delete.
• Comment: I think I found the source of much of the text and photos, which is [1]. That is an uncopyrighted U.S. government work, so it's not a copyvio, but most of the article is a just a copy-paste from NOAA; I don't see the point in keeping it. Any information of interest could be added to Tornado, but that's already a perfectly good article as is. MCB 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete / copyvio there is some non copyright and original material in there (probably Jung hyuk (talk • contribs) has put in very much good faith work, which it is terrible to lose) but the original edit and material which is still in the article are actually copied from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. This makes it a copyvio ("Copyright © 2001-05 Columbia University Press."). I have listed it on the appropriate page. However, I vote delete anyway, since such unclearly sourced material is bad even if it turns out that we could get away with keeping it. The original edit should have given the source clearly. Mozzerati 20:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.