Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOR:CON

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOR:CON

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

This is a non-notable, non-governmental "unofficial" scale created and used only by The Weather Channel (TWC). It is rarely, if ever, used outside that program. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 03:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per OP's reasoning. It does not meet WP:N as it is an officially unrecognized feature applied exclusively within one network. Specifically violates criterion 4 of the general notability guideline. ★ Auree _talk 03:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not qualify for speedy deletion in any way. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know about notability but I'm pretty sure that this page does not belong. Its title is a bad one for starters. Also blatantly fails WP:MOS and WP:NOTHOWTO. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and is either a copyvio (being a reprint of details from some source), or is original research. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched, and cannot find any evidence of it being a copyvio. On what basis do you suspect this? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I wasn't clear: I am not saying it is even likely to be a copyvio. However, assuming that it is not, then the material is OR. It could be argued that (wherever the source is, a video?) the article content is sufficiently rephrased for it to not be a copyvio, but it has to be essentially a paraphrase of someone's content with no encyclopedic value added. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. A trigger-happy admin could probably try to delete this under CSD A7 due to the tenuous assertion of notability, but since it's already here, let's not do that. The only external non-TWC sources that refer to this scale are blogs and forums (which fail WP:RS), and there are no peer-refereed publications that even mention it. The article creator also made several redirects pointing to this page that ought to be nuked alongside this page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:N, specifically in that the only sources either fail WP:RS, or are not independent of the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The definition and description of an acronym/phrase (only used by one particular commercial entity not, in widespread use elsewhere), Wikipedia is not a dictionary seems to apply in this case. Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In-house product of TWC. Definitely a neat measurement scale, but not nearly notable enough for its own article. If it begins to see some usage outside of TWC then, and only then, should it be recreated Carson (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, as this appears to be unused in the actual weather community. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2011 (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.