Talk:2026 Union City tornado

Draftification

This article should not have been drafted This was a substantial tornado with widespread coverage, the reason given was this was less than 6 months ago but tornadoes have had articles within 1 week not be draftified The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

What..? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

i assume you’re asking what about the reason why it was drafted

To clarify what i said

When the article was drafted the reason given was that the tornado happened less than 6 months ago The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm wondering what tornadoes have had an article made one week after they occurred and are still not draftified Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Literally the only thing that comes to my mind that isn't a IAR case is the 2025 St. Louis tornado..TornadoEF4 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should have been published so early. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Article is still rather small and I see no sources from after March 20. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: For any reviewers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Union City tornado just closed yesterday. Star Mississippi 14:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

article can hopefuly be published now

well...it's been 6 months since the tornado occurred, so it's safe to say that this can become an article from my knowledge Sketchmickeymouselol (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

While six months have passed, theres still no coverage from six months after. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s not quite six months after, but I actually have found some recent coverage of the tornado, including ~2026-48410-57 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s not quite six months after - There's the issue. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

does it matter? dude this was a rare winter deadly high end ef3 tornado in michigan, easiest iar ive ever seen + the comment from the temporary account The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

does it matter? dude this was a rare winter deadly high end ef3 tornado in michigan - It does matter, and yes I understand that, but it doesn't allow it to circumvent the criteria.

easiest iar ive ever seen - Well, IAR is for when you 100% know a tornado is going to get 6+ month coverage, and this one hasn't yet, so..., plus the outbreak article needs significant expansion before we split anything out, honestly. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Here’s the 6 month coverage https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1CDhMK79gN/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I’ll try to find even more, this coverage is from Grand Rapids WoodTV 8, an NBC affiliate The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Welp, there it is. Nevermind then I suppose, but I still think the draft and outbreak article needs some work. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

My position on it is the draft is in a place where it can be published but it could use some touch ups The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Eh, as it stands, everything in this draft could easily be merged into the outbreak article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is some lasting coverage about the tornado. By the way, the outbreak article is also still a short article that could be expanded upon, so it could be worth both publishing the article and also adding to the aftermath and non-tornadic impacts of the main article. ~2026-49198-83 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yea I saw that article yesterday.

so it could be worth both publishing the article and also adding to the aftermath and non-tornadic impacts of the main article - That would just be a WP:CFORK. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Other tornadoes

I want to get opinions on whether this section is or isn’t necessary The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Not neccessary on this article or for any seperate tornado article, this article describes the strongest tornado of the outbreak, it gives undue weight to other tornadoes. I think we should hold a weather RFC on not having an "other tornado" section in a page that describes a strong, violent, or a very significant tornado.

Hence, why I believe it's not neccessary. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree however every time i remove it from this article another editor adds it back The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That's why I suggested an RFC. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty indifferent on it. The supercell was very detached from the main risk area, and nearly very tornado from the supercell was significant in one way or another except the EF0, so I see why someone would want it included in the article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Here's the thing though, this draft is already at 18,000 bytes in page size, adding 4,000 more puts it over at 22000, way over size rules on Wikipedia, and so are many other pages. It's an issue with MoS styling and demands with page size, and it just adds unneeded weight to other tornadoes in that theatre of the outbreak. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

(This is also an issue with other tornadoes that have their own page) shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Here's the thing though, this draft is already at 18,000 bytes in page size, adding 4,000 more puts it over at 22000, way over size rules on Wikipedia, and so are many other pages. - Uh... what? There's been tornado articles that have exceeded 50k bytes, and even 100k bytes, this is just not true. In fact, this is a really short article overall for a standalone tornado.

it just adds unneeded weight to other tornadoes in that theatre of the outbreak. - How, exactly? All the tornadoes from this supercell received quite a bit of coverage that covered all of them, and it's just showing the supercell's lifespan, really. While it's a bit unconventional, I don't know what would explicitly not allow it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This specific article documents one singular tornado, not all tornadoes in the theatre of the outbreak, it'd make more sense to keep tornado articles documenting the subject of the article, and not giving unneeded weight to other tornadoes in that outbreak. We have tornado outbreak pages for a reason.

I meant to say words, not bytes. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This specific article documents one singular tornado, not all tornadoes in the theatre of the outbreak, it'd make more sense to keep tornado articles documenting the subject of the article, and not giving unneeded weight to other tornadoes in that outbreak. We have tornado outbreak pages for a reason. - How exactly does it give unneeded weight?

I meant to say words, not bytes. - This draft is only 1,218 words long. Please see Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline, which says this article would roughly need to be 9,000 to 15,000 words long to be "too long". Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

First of all, even though this tornado may be from the same supercell, all tornadoes produced before and after the Union City tornado in this area, was EF1-EF2, considerably weaker and had less covered/reported information than the Union City tornado, hence why that tornado is in drafting stage to become an article on wikipedia. Union City had more coverage and detailed reports than the other tornadoes that the supercell produced, as it hit a number of homes.

Well that was my mistake, sorry about that. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:22, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

First of all, even though this tornado may be from the same supercell, all tornadoes produced before and after the Union City tornado in this area, was EF1-EF2, considerably weaker and had less covered/reported information than the Union City tornado, hence why that tornado is in drafting stage to become an article on wikipedia. Union City had more coverage and detailed reports than the other tornadoes that the supercell produced, as it hit a number of homes. - What policy does this violate, though? I don't see how it gives undue weight when the other tornadoes only get a small entry in a table while the EF3 gets the rest of the article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The same table is on the outbreak article: nobody is going to just read this article, they are gonna do some more research, so basically we would be rehashing the same table on 2 different pages shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The same table is on the outbreak article: nobody is going to just read this article, they are gonna do some more research - I don't know what you mean.

So basically we would be rehashing the same table on 2 different pages - They aren't the exact same summaries, and a little overlap between such heavily related articles is normal. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Add Back: The tornado was part of a significant supercell in Southwest Michigan that was separate from the rest of the tornadoes

An other tornadoes section is very much warranted Quincy Gordon (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Also the other tornadoes aren't given Undue weight

The first tornado killed someone, and the second tore through a large town Quincy Gordon (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

My opinion at this point is add back but use the correct Infobox and information, but it will not be added back until this discussion has a conclusion The Rochelle EF4 (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)