Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked 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. In closing I am unconvinced that any actionable arguments for keeping this subject have been provided - the links are to minor local newspapers and sources without significant coverage of the subject. KaisaL (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Weather Watch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability. Speedy removed by inexperienced patroller. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the inexperienced patroller you're referrring to? Adam9007 or me or someone else? ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [1] and [2]. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mn::neither article is about the organization, but about someone whose adventure they are sponsoring. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage does not need to be about the topic, just needs to include significant coverage of the topic which, in my estimation they do. ~Kvng (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of the sources used as references in the article, one is a generic Met Office page on "What do we mean by climate?" which does not mention the subject of the article and the other is a site of the charity's founder, so WP:PRIMARY. The two additional sources identified above are brief mentions in press coverage of a young sailor who serves as Youth Ambassador for the organisation. These are more substantial, but as per User:DGG above, I would not regard them as providing WP:ORGDEPTH evidence. Nor are my own searches identifying anything which servesas substantial coverage of the organisation. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems to have got more coverage in the last few days.[3] Rathfelder (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that is just localcoverage from the particpant's immediate area,and its basically a reprint of the other press releases . DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Keep votes are still not convincing how the article can actually insinuate the needed notability and my own searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.