Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Minnesota tornadoes

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Minnesota tornadoes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic does not appear to be notable. While the year was above average in the number of tornadoes in MInnesota, they were not particularly impactful, with only two tornadoes meeting the technical definition of "significant." It doesn't really stand out among other potential "tornadoes by state and year" articles. This article also mostly depends on primary sources that routinely cover tornadoes. Most of the information in this article was already present in monthly tornado lists (which are a regular part of WikiProject Weather), such as List of United States tornadoes from June to July 2017. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been covered appropriately elsewhere, and additional coverage without additional cause or sources is unnecessary. NiklausGerard (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.