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 no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 15:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Lixion Avila (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This article appears to have been created originally as fancruft, and was full of "quirky quotes." Since that has all been removed, there's is absolutely nothing that would assert the notability of the subject. MSJapan ( talk) 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• DeleteWeak keep. Quirks do not amount to notability but a high citation count does. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC). reply
• Neutral. I really don't know what to do about this one. Of course the nom was correct that the article was just a piece of fancruft. However, the subject might be notable. He does have a PhD (I added a ref), and has published a bunch of academic papers. GS gives him an h-index of 23, with top cites of 230, 179, 169, 134, 122. That's not bad, although I am not sure what the standards in meteorology are. However, many of these papers look more like technical reports to me even if they are called journal articles. He has many articles called "Atlantic hurricane season of YYYY" where YYYY is a given year. I may be unfair but to an outside observer they look rather similar in structure, more like technical/statistical reports than research articles. He is an elected fellow of the American Meteorological Society (I added a ref). So perhaps one could make a case for passing WP:PROF here, although it looks iffy to me. In terms of WP:GNG/ WP:BIO, he is a weatherman, so naturally there are lots of hits in GNews. Most of these seem to be mentions of him reporting the weather. However, I did find at least one biographical NBC news-story specifically about him [1]. There may be others. He did get some awards within NOAA and NHC (I added a ref to one of them and they are all mentioned in his staff profile page [2]). These awards don't seem to me to be sufficiently prominent to confer notability but I may be wrong. The profile page also claims that he was twice nominated "an Emmy Award for his participation in a hurricane program preparedness". Haven't found independent confirmation of that. He does have an IMDB entry [3], although there isn't much there. All in all, I am still stuck in neutral here. Nsk92 ( talk) 21:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this detailed work. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC). reply

Here is some information about the AMS Fellows criteria. It seems that each slate of nominees represents no more than 0.2% of its membership. I'm not sure exactly how this compares to being a fellow of the societies that usually meet WP:PROF like the IEEE or APS. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 23:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

IEEE claims that "The total number selected in any one year does not exceed one-tenth of one percent of the total voting Institute membership", so it's not dissimilar. No longer a penguin ( talk) 13:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fundamentally, a local weather caller. Doesn't seem to be notable Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Neutral @ MSJapan, Xxanthippe, Nsk92, EricEnfermero, No longer a penguin, and Deathlibrarian: As a member of the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject, I feel that it wise to comment with some facts but not take an opinion. Lixion is a "Senior Hurricane Forecaster" at the US National Hurricane Center, which is an international weather forecasting agency dedicated to tropical cyclones and other weather for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins (Basically Africa to the middle of the Pacific Ocean). As a result I personally feel that does not make one of its forecasters essentially "a local weather caller", since we can have TC's affect numerous island nations at the same time. As has been noted above Lixion has authored a number of articles which have been published in a variety of journals, however, the Atlantic/Eastern Pacific hurricane season of YYYY ones are not research articles, unless you consider him to be researching the tropical cyclones of YYYY while forecasting and warning others about them. Jason Rees ( talk) 23:05, 17 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.