The result was merge to List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Even most creative interpretation of policy does not allow relisting where consensus exists already, so I have ignored the non-admin relisting. Consensus for the current article is as follows: a.) The tornado is not notable on its own based on available sources and references but b.) warrants its own article if more details, sources and references can be found. As such, the consensus is to merge but is explicitly not against significantly expanding it instead. Regards So Why 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Either a hoax or completely non-notable. No references available, and while if the text of the article were true it would be notable, I can find no evidence that it is the case. No permutation of "Yellowknife" or "Northwest Territories" and "tornado" yields any relevant google hits aside from Wikipedia and mirrors. Would love to find sources if they exist, but I don't think they do. RunningOnBrains( talk page) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Even most creative interpretation of policy does not allow relisting where consensus exists already, so I have ignored the non-admin relisting. Consensus for the current article is as follows: a.) The tornado is not notable on its own based on available sources and references but b.) warrants its own article if more details, sources and references can be found. As such, the consensus is to merge but is explicitly not against significantly expanding it instead. Regards So Why 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Either a hoax or completely non-notable. No references available, and while if the text of the article were true it would be notable, I can find no evidence that it is the case. No permutation of "Yellowknife" or "Northwest Territories" and "tornado" yields any relevant google hits aside from Wikipedia and mirrors. Would love to find sources if they exist, but I don't think they do. RunningOnBrains( talk page) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply