Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Amateur Storm Forecasts


 * 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   Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

UK Amateur Storm Forecasts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - no indication of notability for this organization. Google search for brings up 7 results (including Wikipedia article). Another search for is about 240. Mentions of the organization appear to be in various discussion forums or blogs. ... disco spinster   talk  15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What would be required in the article for it to be eligible? The organisation itself is relatively new, therefore has not made headlines as such, but is well known among many weather enthusiasts, especially, as you mentioned, in forums and blogs. I have included as much detail as possible on the organisation's history and the services it offers, but am concerned what else is necessary for it not to be deleted? Many thanks in advance. UKASF  talk  18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - does not meet the requirements for notability, nor any possibility of obtaining reliable third party sources to meet this requirement for inclusion. This is aside from the obvious conflict of interest concerns as well as the consequences of ignoring that guideline. --tgheretford (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the links you have provided, and found the following: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." If you would prefer, I can find links to other sites that either mention UKASF or use their services as evidence? I'm a little confused with the 'Conflict of Interest concerns', I was wondering if that could be explained? Thanks in advance. UKASF  talk  08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears you have a conflict of interest because of your username, UKASF and the title of the article, UK Amateur Storm Forecasts. Jons63 (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh right i see, thanks for replying. UKASF  talk  08:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." That is talking about articles that reliable 3rd party sources are available just not provided in the article currently.  From the policy on verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  There are no 3rd party reliable sources available to add to this article, so Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  Jons63 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying again. All of the following websites, which I have found by searching the internet, use at least 1 of the services provided by UKASF:
 * http://www.scotweather.co.uk/ (widget)
 * http://www.weatherconnect.co.uk/ (widget)
 * http://www.severe-weather.co.uk/ (widget)
 * http://stormchaseplymouth.bravehost.com/ (widget and banner)
 * http://www.midlandsweather.org.uk/lightning.php (widget)
 * http://www.southweather.co.uk/convectivemapgraph.htm (widget)
 * http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=48864&view=findpost&p=1308917 (forecast copied)
 * http://www.midlandsweather.org.uk/uk-weather-chat/10162-convective-outlook-9th-10th-may-2008-a.html#post1064582 (forecast copied)

Does this not show how many people recognise the organisation and how noticable it might be? Thankyou for your time. UKASF  talk  20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - not massively notable, but perhaps worthy of inclusion.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.   —MacRusgail (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DElete - a NN organisation, trying to mimic what the professionals at the Met Office are able to do much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask where your evidence for that statement lies? I should inform you that one of the UKASF forecasters does in fact have a BSc in Meteorology, and another is a member of the Royal Meteorological Society (RMetS). UKASF have also had one or two private emails commenting on their accuracy, and as one specifically mentioned, how poorly the Met Office had forecasted a particular storm. The storm in question occured during the night of Wednesday 6th August which affected a large swathe of the southeast and East Anglia, completely un-mentioned nor predicted by the Met Office. It should also be noted that UKASF do not use Met Office forecasts when issuing their own forecasts, and use different techniques. They also specialise in thunderstorms alone, not all aspects of UK weather as the Met Office does. Another link: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=49084&view=findpost&p=1318161 to a very recent post (last 20minutes) of one of the UKASF forecasts being used. UKASF  talk  22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - not massively notable in reliable 3rd party sources, it seems due to the organisation's "early stages", but still notable nonetheless, and still worthy of inclusion Dollsworth (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (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.