Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois


 * 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I feel this is a violation of WP:NOTDIR and have serious questions about the article's notability, as NWS Chicago does not seem to function differently from any other NWS office (assuming NWS offices themselves can be notable) and does not seem to have a remarkable history. &mdash; 203 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, this seems to be not only a fine article, but a great way to organize the NOAA Weather Radio radio stations by main NWS office rather than many redundant articles. The article is sourced itself and I see no outstanding issues; at that this is the NWS office for a major metropolitan area and it would be myopic to delete it, especially as it seems to be the official NWS office for northern Illinois.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I struggle to see how those statements imply notability. This article does not pass WP:GNG because it lacks adequate sources showing significant coverage by independent sources. Every source in the article is from either NOAA or NWS Chicago. If we're going to make list articles of NOAA Weather Radio stations by WFO, they should be titled as such, and they would still have to establish the notability of the list itself to avoid another WP:NOTDIR violation. &mdash; 203 01:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not to be bringing up a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but on that last part (by Blurred203), if you use that argument here, you could delete several other NWS articles for WFOs as well, and one of the WFO articles (also in Illinois, I think) received a good article rating. I am just bringing that up so you don't end up deleting a whole mass of decent or potentially good articles based on notability. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually question the GA review of the article to which you're referring, and I'll likely put it up for reassessment when I get a chance. I do not find the rigor I expect in a GA review by any means, but regardless, a non-notable article should not be present on Wikipedia regardless of whether it qualifies as a good article. Much of my response to Nate above also applies here. Both NWS Chicago and NWS Central Illinois's articles rely heavily on sources from NOAA or the NWS office itself, though the NWS Central Illinois article is better in that regard. This article has precisely zero independent sources. &mdash; 203 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article doesn't look to me to violate WP:NOTDIR, it is sourced, and quite useful for an encyclopaedia. I am One of Many (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The question we have to answer here is each of the 123 national weather forecast offices notable or worth giving articles too? - Personally i think Guam, Honolulu and Pago-Pago may be worth it, since they have to issue Tropical Storm Warnings and sort of have international responsibilities.Jason Rees (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What about certain other notable forecast offices in the contiguous United States? There are a few that I would consider significant there, as well, including a few located in the US interior. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on those.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Here's a question -- we had to deal with this with individual meteorologists pages a year or two -- what establishes notability for a NWS weather forecast office? They all issue forecasts, coordinate with national centers on watches, and issue warnings. Some of them are doing news conferences too, usually involving recent tornadoes. Deciding notability is important, as it could threaten the articles we have on the NWS National Centers as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find that to be a very simple question, but here is my response. Notability altogether for a NWS WFO should be decided based upon a combination of factors; some of these factors would include references from media, importance of research done by this office, historical importance of the WFO (e.g. first weather radar, major firsts for weather forecasting, etc.), references (not including list mentions) from other parts of the government (including other parts of NOAA), and others which I am yet to think of. That is just what I think; I believe that there would be at least a few NWS WFOs which meet those criteria, and so in my opinion, there should be articles for at least a few of them. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a fair way to go -- you'd favor the offices which were formerly WSFOs -- State Forecast Offices -- like Chicago, Peachtree City/Atlanta, Miami, Birmingham, Jackson, etcetera and possibly those which were former hurricane warning offices/marine weather forecasting offices, which would include Boston, D.C./Sterling, Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans/Burrwood, San Francisco, Honolulu, and Seattle. Maybe even the SPC predecessor's home in Kansas City/Pleasant Hill.  The Paducah KY office article would likely not pass this criteria.  It's best to spell this out now -- there are only eight NWS offices with articles, the last time I checked.  All the National Centers have articles.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the predecessor centers / offices, I would just include relevant information in an article titled under the office's current name; while these offices may be significant, there probably wouldn't be enough information to fill two separate articles with. Also, I don't understand what you mean "which were formerly WSFOs;" that just stands for Weather Service Forecast Office. There are more than eight WFOs with articles; see List of National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices. I once created an article for an NWS WFO, National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma, but it was, wrongly, I believe, speedily deleted. Then, a user asked an admin to userfy it, which was promptly done. I eventually moved it back to my user space; I don't know if that will have any impact upon this AFD, but I thought I would mention it. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The former WSFOs/former marine and former hurricane offices would have a potentially extensive history (research-wise or otherwise) associated with them, as they were the main forecast offices at the time and would have been the source of research papers for many years, fax transmissions and, far enough back, input in the surface analyses drawn at the time (I'm finding evidence of this in 1949 and 1950). OUN/Norman would fit in here, as it is a continuation of the OK City office.  Offices like PAH/Paducah, CRP/Corpus Christi TX, and Springfield, MO/SGF were not WSFOs, they were WSOs, meaning there would be minimal history other than maybe that they took observations, performed pilot weather briefings, initiated weather warnings in the radar era, did weather radio transmissions from around 1970 onward, and perhaps launched weather balloons -- that could be covered in a few lines at most.  All that aside, the Chicago article needs a lot of work -- it seems only their weather radio transmitters get much coverage (it's unbalanced).  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this article needs work. Just to support the notion that NWS office can be notable, it would be best if there were an article that was good enough in terms of secondary sources and reliable sources to indicate coverage. It wouldn't matter if there were some unreliable sources (to indicate notability); it would only matter that it had a combination of primary and at least a few secondary sources. Am I being clear here? I don't know if any currently existing articles on the list meet those criteria, but I am certain (because of my user space OUN article) that it is possible for at least some of these offices to meet these standards if given enough work. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pretty much all current NWS WFOs were former WSFOs (like WFO ALY - formerly called WSFO ALB) or WSOs that were "spun up" into WFOs (like WFO BTV - formerly WSO BTV) in the 1990s. There were a small number of WSFOs that were formerly called "Category One WSFOs" (like WFO BOX - formerly WSFO BOS), which were basically WSFOs with offshore marine forecasting responsibilities & therefore a higher GS grade structure to them (their Lead Forecasters were GS-14s, their General Forecasters were GS-13s, their Meteorologists-in-Charge's were GS-15s, etc.). I'm pretty sure that some, but not all, of that difference in pay grade structure still exists today. Guy1890 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had to look this up...it's been a year or two since I thought about the NWS structure from the 1980s and early 1990s. There were 52 WSFOs (mentioned on page 52), as opposed to the over 120 WFOs that current exist.  The only offices with GS-14 lead forecasters these days are the National Centers and Honolulu (which is nearly a national center).  MIC pay structure is mottled...some spin-up WFOs got GS-15 MICs if they had the combination of marine responsibility and/or portions of three states in their area while others have GS-14s.  Thegreatdr (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, the remaining Lead Forecasters & General Forecasters at the old Category One WSFOs were downgraded one grade a number of years ago. Some of those GS-13 General Forecasters were given the opportunity to non-competively bid out on GS-13 Lead Forecaster job openings at many of the spin-up WSOs in the late 1990s. The grade structure of the management people (MICs, Science Operations Officers, etc.) at modern WFOs has a lot to do with how many people live in a WFO's County Warning Area (CWA), how complex the terrain is in a CWA, whether a WFO has marine forecasting responsibility, whether a WFO is a state liason office, whether a WFO has international coordination responsibilities, etc.. Not all of this criteria was necessary applied equally across the entire USA, but that's really inside baseball. Guy1890 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know all of this? I am having trouble finding relevant information when making searches. Dustin  ( talk ) 05:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I used to work for the NWS, so I might be biased in voting on this particular article at AfD. Not that it matters, but it looks like "Thegreatdr" apparently does work for the NWS. Guy1890 (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that (in your second sentence)? Perhaps I am missing something here? In any case, how can all of this be applied to the office we are discussing for the AFD? Dustin  ( talk ) 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 14 May 2014 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.