Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather Watch


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Weather Watch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem all that notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  02:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  02:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per complete lack of secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No Deletion The website has just been created and is a future resource for my company. There is little reference because it's basic company knowledge I know that isn't anywhere else. I have the current references for line everything together so it makes sense. Not only this, IT JUST STARTED, therefore, I will update this as more ideas flow into my head. JustinWx
 * Independent and reliable sources are needed for articles in order to demonstrate WP:NWEB (in this case)/general notability. -- The SandDoctor Talk 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is another reason for deleting this article. Wikipedia doesn't help newly established companies to gain publicity. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination Strong delete [Edit: Opinion changed after learning this is done for publicity, while Wikipedia is explicitly NOT meant to promote anyone and anything. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)] The criterion is notability. The subject of the article was recently born, so WP:TOOSOON also applies. Perhaps, the nominated article is about a worthy start-up effort; but Wikipedia is not here to promote worthy business efforts. -The Gnome (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Explain publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinWx (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Most of the explaining one would need has already been done by you. You wrote: The website has just been created and is a future resource for my company. That's a clear admission of a WP:TOOSOON violation. Then you admit to lack of notability: There is little reference because it's basic company knowledge I know that isn't anywhere else. You have my best and sincere wishes for success with your venture; if this gets indeed deleted, come back when the subject is notable enough to have the article reinstated. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Just created company has no place n Wikipedia because we don't advertise for startups and newcomers. Wikipedia documents what has already been published about. Utter lack of independent reference shows failure of meeting the criteria or inclusion. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The company was created in 2016 and serves over 30 thousand people on Facebook and Twitter, therefore, small is not applied and when I say, I am meaning new to Wiki, not a new company. Reliable sources for a self-owned company is not do-able. Also, I’m not trying to get publicity, just a source with everything about the company in one place. JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources for a self-owned company is not do-able. - yes, it is. Anything can potentially be discussed in depth in a reliable source. If a company (no matter who owns it) doesn't have significant coverage in independent sources, and doesn't meet these criteria, then it isn't notable according to Wikipedia's definition and there can't be an article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - the sourcing does not appear to exist, at least I am not able to find it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All sources will be removed, what “reliable” types should I add then, in what form? JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * UPDATED Source list has been updated, 3 complete sections have been added and filled in totaling 6 different sections (not including sub-sections) JustinWx (Edited Comments)}} @ 10:24, 20 March 2018 (EDT)


 * Reasons for deletion include the following:
 * - Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * - Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * - Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * - Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * - Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * - Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * - Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * - Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
 * - Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * - Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * - Categories representing overcategorization
 * - Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
 * - Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
 * - Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia


 * None of the topics above apply to this case.
 * 1 - Doesn't Apply 2 - Doesn't Apply 3 - Doesn't Apply 4 - Doesn't Apply because "without any relevant or encyclopedic content" --- which, relevant content is provided 5 - Doesn't Apply 6 - Doesn't Apply 7 - Doesn't Apply 8 - Doesn't Apply 9 - Doesn't Apply 10 - Doesn't Apply 11 - Doesn't Apply 12 - Doesn't Apply 13 - Doesn't Apply 14 - Doesn't Apply because the content is suitable. JustinWx  —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability (criterion 8) has not been shown, that's why it was nominated and that hasn't changed. The sources in the article are primary, published by the company itself, and independent sources are needed to show notability. There's also a large amount of unsourced info, some of it rather promotional, in the article. A deletion discussion generally lasts for a week and is closed by an administrator who has not participated in the discussion, and who looks at the arguments that are based on policy (ignoring those that are not). --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I will look into finding some sources from other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinWx (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @JustinWx You're doing a lot of things wrong. (1) You do not get to decide that "the discussion is over" and that is because we have not a consensus to retain the status quo and, moreover, you support retaining it. (2) The criteria you listed are trumped by WP:N, the rule that brought the article to the stand. (3) You are confusing the process for deleting articles with its companion process for speedily deleting articles. And (4) in discussions such as this one, where who says what is important, please try not to forget to have your input signed. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * DISCUSSION OVER, DELETE @The Gnome Sorry, I'm new to all of Wikipedia and don't know the difference of deletion. I am also frustrated as a page I made may be deleted because it's a smallish community. I didn't know the size of the company, which changes the number of references, had anything to do with a simple Wiki page. If you want, delete it, I don't have any more time to find references to my company. It's simply not worth my time and effort for this attack. -JustinWx
 * There is no "attack." No one is out to do harm to the company or you. You're correct about Wikipedia having rules that might seem a little bewildering to a newcomer, but when you get down to it, the rules here are quite straightforward and simple: To get on Wikipedia, a subject has to be, more than anything else, notable. And notability is supported by third-party sources; not our own efforts. That's about it; the rest of the rules are built to support the functioning of the encyclopaedia around these basic premises. I fully understand the frustration in seeing something close to your heart, such as a nascent company to which you've dedicated a lot of work, getting deleted from Wikipedia. I can only sympathize. I wish you, JustinWx, and your company, such success in the near future that your company makes a triumphant comeback here and questions of notability no one will dare raise. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - very insufficient secondary coverage. In-house blurbs, social media posts, and incidental mentions do not notability make. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 25 March 2018 (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.