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 keep. ...with a fairly clear additional consesus that the content needs some fixin'. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado preparedness[edit]

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

I think that a significant chunk of this article may violate WP:NOTGUIDE, mostly from the "Steps when expecting storms to arrive" section on. What content does not violate NOTGUIDE is mostly information that can be found in the tornado article. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reworded (from author): I have reworded many sentences because some of the text had repeated the U.S. FEMA preparation steps from August 2010, and it had fostered the illusion of current how-to steps, especially inside a table of preparations. Instead, all prior events have been reworded, now, using past-tense verbs, to emphasize, by historical tone, that the information applied to past events. Most of the article already used a factual or historical tone in describing the activities involved when making preparations for tornadoes. Since the sources used were specifically about preparations, then the article remains a subarticle of "Tornado" about the notable topic of "tornado preparedness" and what that term entails. Hence, I advise to keep as reworded, although it could be expanded for more global viewpoints. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the above summarised work has certainly improved the article but I just can't see how we can get past WP:NOTHOWTO. The problem is that most of the "sources" provided are the how-to guides and FAQ-type pages from the various emergency management agencies. There's no real analysis of how tornado preparedness measures (implemented in the past) have had an impact on sustained damage or death rates or repair bills. There's no historical analysis of what tornado preparedness looked like in, say, 1900, then 1950 and then today. There's no analysis of the measures implemented in different countries or a comparison to measures implemented during different natural disasters. Those are the sorts of things I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia article about this subject. Instead, we still have mostly how-to type stuff. If the lede could be expanded into a full article and the step-by-step stuff removed, I think we would be getting closer. But I think we need more analytical, historical stuff rather than the "this is recommended" type stuff, if that makes sense. Stalwart111 01:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's obvious that FEMA recommends these various actions etc. because they've been proven (or are thought to be true, at least) to be important elements of tornado preparedness. It doesn't seem particularly hard to rewrite it along the lines of "FEMA believes that [action] is an important component of tornado safety because [effect]". Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But edit and trim.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2013 (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.