Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather Star 4000 (2nd nomination)

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 Merge into Weather Star and turn into a redirect. I will leave the actual merge to the article editors, but the consensus is clear that this isn't ready for its own topic at this time, yet the term will still be a valid redirect and the information will be useful in the parent article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star 4000[edit]

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

Previous discussion had no responses and was closed without prejudice against speedy re-nomination.

These articles have way too much trivial information and questionable use of YouTube videos as "sources". If there are notable details about the hardware that can be obtained from reliable sources, it could be covered in a much less in-depth fashion. (that FCC document on phasing out earlier models because they cannot produce aural alert tones would be a good place to start).

If this article is deleted/merged, I recommend deletion of all the other pages on WeatherStar units and the like as well. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. In Correct (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Correct, AfD decisions are supposed to consider the strength of the arguments, not the number of "votes". Could you elaborate?

Keep I agree the article could use an extensive reworking; however, it seems likely that the subject will meet basic notability standards. Sort of bizarrely, that's 'keep per nom'. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, why do you think it's "likely" to meet notability standards? Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note here that this is one of a series of similar articles about the various versions of the WeatherStar, all of which (especially the legacy/obsolete models) are roughly the same in terms of sourcing and trivia. Is there a reason that this particular version is being targeted for deletion while the others are not? Perhaps, if the amount of legitimate information in most of these articles is not enough to warrant separate articles, they could be integrated into the main WeatherStar article (as much of it is already there) and those articles can be redirected. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the other ones should be added to the nomination. I have no problem with that. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All these articles should be merged together, not deleted. In Correct (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User: Anonymous person 19:44 (CDT/UTC-5), 29 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.122.101 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2014 — 75.53.122.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I think that the Youtube links should be added back onto this article because they are evidence of how a Weatherstar 4000 have operated (and have been displayed onto an audience member) from 1990 onto it's end (end of life date). Suppose if a reader were to question the function of the unit (ex. displaying various kinds of graphics) and wanted to see how it works on Youtube without any intervention from search results on Google. Also, if this was voted to be merged, I would agree on that part. | 19:48 (CDT/UTC-5), 29 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.122.101 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2014 — 75.53.122.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Unfortunately, we cannot do that. Firstly, they are effectively primary sources; our articles must depend on reliable, secondary sources. Secondly, we have rules against linking to copyrighted material. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly accurate. Notability must be established by reliable, independent sources, but there is no problem using primary sources for limited purposes such as establishing basic, uncontroversial facts. And linking to copyrighted material is fine; linking to copyright violations is the problem. It's not at all clear that the youtube videos are copyright violations. However, Wikipedia is not a manual and, from what I can make out, the videos are essentially tutorials. If someone's looking for a manual or a tutorial, Wikipedia is not the place to find it. GoldenRing (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WeatherStar (with all other related articles). I had suggested this a few days ago. Even as a Weather Channel fan myself the technology is not known outside of the fanbase to warrant a single article for each generation, especially since most references link to sites against Wikipedia's policy, such as message boards, blogs, and copyrighted videos. All of the "headend locations" need to be gone too. Wikipedia is not a cable directory. Also, the timelines need to be summarized into a few brief paragraphs at best. MikeM2011 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea what's happened to the information given in this article over the five years I've watched it, but yeah it has gone rather trivial, even after the removal of the headend utilization list. If we can find official documents from TWC that could be used as encyclopedic information to keep the article up, then I'd say do that instead of just flat out delete an article on something that does actually exist. --Z L Media 23:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZLMedia, I found official TWC documents (links below), but these are not independent sources, so do not establish notability required for stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. Verifiable existence is insufficient; the essay Existence ≠ Notability discusses this. Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WeatherStar per MikeM2011. Once the trivia is removed there is no need for a separate article. --Bejnar (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero independent reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability of the subject. The references to amateur videoclips of WS4000 output do not constitute reliable sources, in my opinion, and even if they are, should not establish notability of the subject. Sources considered:

[Apparently self-published:] Alan Fields (1995). Partly Sunny: The Weather Junkie's Guide to Outsmarting the Weather. Ingram Publisher Services. ISBN 978-0-9626556-5-4.
[Recorded presentation, dubious reliability:] "The WeatherSTAR 4000 Emulator for Quasi-Operational Dissemination of Real-time Weather Data
[Brief mention:] "Low-cost "Weather Star"". Communications Engineering Digest. International Thomson Communications, Volume 19, Issues 7-13. 1993. p. 73. ... The new, low-cost model called the Weather Star Jr. will render forecasts in videotext (instead of the color graphics, animation, local weather radar and other visual effects available with the larger Weather Star 4000). As a result, the scaled-down model will be 'significantly less expensive' than the Weather Star 4000, company officials say.
[TWC's documentation:] "The Weather Channel Current Conditions". The Weather Channel. Archived from the original on 2002-11-02. (Contains links to installation guide, product guide, release notes, and FAQ.)

--Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WeatherStar (with all other related articles). Nothingabout the 4000 warrants its own article but weather star does have sufficient coverage across all models. SPACKlick (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2014 (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.