Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Weather Service North Little Rock, Arkansas

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 keep. Katie^talk 20:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Weather Service North Little Rock, Arkansas[edit]

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

Unnecessary spin-out articles of List of National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices. Provides little additional information. The offices on their own fails WP:ORG, an office does not inherit notability from the National Weather Service. Also sourcing in these articles are either limited or non-existent. Some articles likely contain WP:OR. Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles being nominated:

Keep Illinois articles mentioned for example are hardly lacking in content nor do they look full of Original Research as charged. CaribDigita (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago, IL article is little more than a list of radio stations. The Lincoln, IL is one of the better written articles, but I still believe it fails WP:ORG.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles seem to be well sourced, though to non-independent (government) sources. Also, as with most mass-noms, there are issues with some likely having better sources out there than others and there are not links to previous AfDs. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By far a WP:SOFIXIT proposition rather than full deletion for any of these (especially major city offices and Norman, Oklahoma, which the nom seems to have failed to do the most basic of WP:BEFORE and most know as the major research center/forecast authority for tornadoes in the United States; same with Miami and the National Hurricane Center). Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf:I think you may have confused the local NWS office in Norman, OK with the Storm Prediction Center (also located in Norman, OK), I believe they are two separate offices.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever their connection is, you have 20+ sources in the Norman NWS article and they definitely don't have a stone wall between them. Nate • (chatter) 23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Norman article is not quite as good as it appears on the surface. It starts off with a mostly unsourced history section, then it goes into a discussion about a notable weather event which already has its own article, next comes a description of its website (this section should just be deleted regardless), and then a list of radio stations. That's it, almost all of the sources are the NWS website.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would be throwing away an enormous amount of valuable and perfectly notable work. Unnecessary spin-out really. What is the purpose of any encyclopedia if not for spin out articles. scope_creep (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from most of the articles have many valid sources this AfD bundling is in the territory of WP:TRAINWRECK which hinders meaningful assessment of individual article and further worsen the AfD process. I will support examining each on its merit or at most 3 in AfD. Saying they contain OR is hasty generalization (which is caused by the bundling) and did not match what I see in many of the articles –Ammarpad (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chronic deletionism at its worst from one of our most strident deletionists. Sadly, Rusf10 has made admonished after having made previous bulk nominations and has too often failed to make the most basic analysis required by WP:BEFORE. Above and beyond failing to look for sources for each of the articles bundled into this nomination, it's unclear if there was even an effort to read articles such as National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois, National Weather Service Miami, Florida and National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma, which are indisputably notable. An out-and-out ban on AfD for Rusf10 should be seriously considered to end the further abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sohn (I know you don't like me calling you by your first name), do you have an actual policy reason to keep these? Because that is an outright personal attack and nothing else.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OUTING and start using my full username; this is not the first time that you have violated WP:HARASS and this is an explicit final warning. The policy argument is that this bulk nomination is an abuse of process from an editor who has been warned previously about bulk nominations. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you picked your username, not me.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock, the user name is eight characters and makes no indication of how it is to be parsed; that's based solely on you;re attempts to disclose information about me in violation of WP:OUTING. Read WP:HARASS and follow it; else dig your own grave. As you seem to be following me around, you'll see that I have participated in AfDs above and beyond those included in your initial threats aimed at me, both now and for the past dozen years. When a bulk AfD popped up, I was astounded to see that an editor like you who had already been warned against making abusive bulk deletions was at it again. I thus participated. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you just admitted you decided to participate after you saw I nominated it. Youre clearing following me around (not the other way around), but that's okay.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulshit, dude. I said I saw a bulk nomination on AfD and was surprised to see your name on it after I had edited the nom. Remember Sherlock that you're the one who promised to delete articles because you believed they were connected to me (see this threat, as a reminder). Take a look at how participation is tracking here and tell me where consensus is? Are you going to withdraw the nomination or will you just keep battling away in the true spirit of disruptive deletionism? Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a WP:SOFIXIT. Given the size of the city and the various other similar articles for similar sized cities, I don't see why the article was ever nominated for deletion. The National Wealther Service does important work. Deletionism at its worst is at play here.Knox490 (talk)

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.