171:
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
513:. 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:
225:
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.
508:
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
461:
500:
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
413:
121:
425:
437:
88:
83:
92:
449:
75:
319:
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:
368:
295:
That is talking about articles that reliable 3rd party sources are available just not provided in the article currently. From the policy on
172:
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.
504:(RMetS). UKASF have also had one or two private emails commenting on their accuracy, and as one specifically mentioned, how poorly the
193:, nor any possibility of obtaining reliable third party sources to meet this requirement for inclusion. This is aside from the obvious
555:
3rd party sources, it seems due to the organisation's "early stages", but still notable nonetheless, and still worthy of inclusion
293:"If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable."
223:"If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable."
17:
303:" There are no 3rd party reliable sources available to add to this article, so Knowledge should not have an article on it.
567:
543:
525:
514:
494:
476:
403:
385:
362:
312:
282:
268:
234:
215:
180:
166:
57:
501:
377:
Does this not show how many people recognise the organisation and how noticable it might be? Thankyou for your time.
79:
301:
If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it.
582:
36:
71:
63:
581:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
369:
http://www.midlandsweather.org.uk/uk-weather-chat/10162-convective-outlook-9th-10th-may-2008-a.html#post1064582
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
490:
158:
53:
485:- a NN organisation, trying to mimic what the professionals at the Met Office are able to do much better.
210:
563:
539:
472:
399:
132:
139:
is about 240. Mentions of the organization appear to be in various discussion forums or blogs.
486:
304:
260:
143:
202:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
308:
264:
556:
535:
468:
395:
515:
http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=49084&view=findpost&p=1318161
363:
http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=48864&view=findpost&p=1308917
356:
244:
198:
194:
350:
109:
517:
to a very recent post (last 20minutes) of one of the UKASF forecasts being used.
296:
190:
49:
518:
510:
505:
378:
275:
227:
173:
136:
221:
I have been looking at the links you have provided, and found the following:
344:
131:- no indication of notability for this organization. Google search for
135:
brings up 7 results (including
Knowledge article). Another search for
338:
332:
575:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
326:
247:
because of your username, UKASF and the title of the article,
394:- not massively notable, but perhaps worthy of inclusion.--
116:
105:
101:
97:
462:
list of
Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions
357:
http://www.southweather.co.uk/convectivemapgraph.htm
414:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
585:). No further edits should be made to this page.
351:http://www.midlandsweather.org.uk/lightning.php
426:list of Scotland-related deletion discussions
8:
438:list of England-related deletion discussions
450:list of Wales-related deletion discussions
460:: This debate has been included in the
448:: This debate has been included in the
436:: This debate has been included in the
424:: This debate has been included in the
412:: This debate has been included in the
345:http://stormchaseplymouth.bravehost.com/
199:consequences of ignoring that guideline
274:Oh right i see, thanks for replying.
189:- does not meet the requirements for
7:
24:
339:http://www.severe-weather.co.uk/
333:http://www.weatherconnect.co.uk/
534:non-notable and non-verifiable
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
327:http://www.scotweather.co.uk/
58:13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
502:Royal Meteorological Society
133:"UK Amateur Storm Forecasts"
568:15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
551:- not massively notable in
544:14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
526:22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
495:19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
477:16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
404:16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
386:20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
313:09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
283:08:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
269:08:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
235:08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
216:22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
181:18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
167:15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
602:
72:UK Amateur Storm Forecasts
64:UK Amateur Storm Forecasts
578:Please do not modify it.
197:concerns as well as the
32:Please do not modify it.
243:It appears you have a
245:conflict of interest
195:conflict of interest
347:(widget and banner)
44:The result was
479:
465:
453:
441:
429:
417:
371:(forecast copied)
365:(forecast copied)
214:
593:
580:
523:
466:
456:
444:
432:
420:
408:
383:
280:
232:
208:
178:
162:
155:
148:
142:
119:
113:
95:
34:
601:
600:
596:
595:
594:
592:
591:
590:
589:
583:deletion review
576:
519:
379:
276:
228:
174:
165:
160:
149:
144:
140:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
599:
597:
588:
587:
571:
570:
546:
498:
497:
480:
454:
442:
430:
418:
406:
375:
374:
373:
372:
366:
360:
354:
348:
342:
336:
330:
321:
320:
316:
315:
272:
271:
219:
218:
157:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
598:
586:
584:
579:
573:
572:
569:
565:
561:
560:
554:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
522:
516:
512:
507:
503:
496:
492:
488:
487:Peterkingiron
484:
481:
478:
474:
470:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
389:
388:
387:
384:
382:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
325:
324:
323:
322:
318:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:verifiability
294:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
279:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
231:
224:
217:
212:
207:
205:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
184:
183:
182:
179:
177:
169:
168:
164:
163:
156:
154:
153:
147:
138:
134:
130:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
577:
574:
558:
552:
548:
531:
520:
499:
482:
457:
445:
433:
421:
409:
391:
380:
376:
300:
292:
288:
277:
273:
256:
252:
248:
240:
229:
222:
220:
203:
186:
175:
170:
159:
151:
150:
145:
128:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
259:orecasts.
137:UKASF storm
536:Jasynnash2
511:Met Office
506:Met Office
469:MacRusgail
396:MacRusgail
191:notability
392:Weak keep
553:reliable
359:(widget)
353:(widget)
341:(widget)
335:(widget)
329:(widget)
152:spinster
122:View log
251:mateur
241:Comment
206:retford
89:protect
84:history
532:Delete
483:DElete
305:Jons63
289:Delete
261:Jons63
187:Delete
129:Delete
117:delete
93:delete
50:Stifle
46:Delete
559:worth
557:Dolls
521:UKASF
381:UKASF
291:Yes,
278:UKASF
255:torm
230:UKASF
176:UKASF
146:disco
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
564:talk
549:Keep
540:talk
491:talk
473:talk
458:Note
446:Note
434:Note
422:Note
410:Note
400:talk
309:talk
265:talk
249:UK A
211:talk
204:tghe
201:. --
161:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
464:.
452:.
440:.
428:.
416:.
299:: "
141:...
566:)
542:)
493:)
475:)
402:)
311:)
267:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
562:(
538:(
489:(
471:(
467:—
398:(
307:(
263:(
257:F
253:S
213:)
209:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.