- 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. Nakon 03:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources at all. (Note: A deletion proposal ( WP:PROD) was removed by an IP editor without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: This seems to be a major and highly-cited project. The Wikipedia article should have inline references, rather than the reference list at the end like it does now, and a few additional references might be good. However, this looks like useful information to have on Wikipedia. OtterAM ( talk) 12:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can you provide any sources that indicate that it's "a major and highly-cited project"? If you can, then I may well be willing to change my mind, but simply saying that it "seems to be" one, without explaining why, isn't very helpful. The fact that the references are not inline is a defect of the layout of the article, but it has no bearing at all on the issue of whether it should be deleted: whether references are inline or not makes no difference to their value in establishing notability. "A few additional references" not just "might be good", they are essential, as none of the references given at present are third party sources, they are all written by the experimenters. If there are third party sources that you know of, please provide them. As for "this looks like useful information to have on Wikipedia", you may find it helpful to read
WP:USEFUL. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've found a few things online, like this
[1], this
[2], and this
[3]. On Google Scholar there are >100 papers that mention "The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment"
[4]. I said that it is useful since Wikipedia provides a quick overview of
an importanta frequently discussed study in the field. OtterAM ( talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've found a few things online, like this
[1], this
[2], and this
[3]. On Google Scholar there are >100 papers that mention "The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment"
[4]. I said that it is useful since Wikipedia provides a quick overview of
- Can you provide any sources that indicate that it's "a major and highly-cited project"? If you can, then I may well be willing to change my mind, but simply saying that it "seems to be" one, without explaining why, isn't very helpful. The fact that the references are not inline is a defect of the layout of the article, but it has no bearing at all on the issue of whether it should be deleted: whether references are inline or not makes no difference to their value in establishing notability. "A few additional references" not just "might be good", they are essential, as none of the references given at present are third party sources, they are all written by the experimenters. If there are third party sources that you know of, please provide them. As for "this looks like useful information to have on Wikipedia", you may find it helpful to read
WP:USEFUL. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: The article is not very well organized but RAINEX is a well know experiment (non exhautive list of AMS articles about it https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/search-results/?cx=006604013691433161533%3Acni8ugxqzym&q=RAINEX&sa=&cof=FORID%3A11). If this article is not worth to be in Wikipedia, none in the Category:Meteorology research and field projects are worth either.
- Keep A quick search finds [5] showing it was being discussed in mainstream newspapers. Together with all the scholarly sources above, this topic is definitely notable. The article may not yet be particularly good, but deletion is not cleanup. Happy Squirrel ( talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not a great article, but this appears to be a highly cited and influential experiment. Some attention from a meteorology-minded person could make this quite worthwhile.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and referenced. DeVerm ( talk) 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This article satisfy notability criteria. -- Dcirovic ( talk) 23:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Draft instead especially if needed since I have found quite several links especially from the past 10 years or so, but still nothing convincingly better for the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Draft. This seems like an interesting topic (but a terrible title for the article), but sadly, it fails our notability standards. The four references in the article are to scientific papers, which are first-party sources, and thus not suitable as sources to establish notability. I looked at the three sources supplied by OtterAM. The Science Daily piece is a reprint of an NSF press release. I assume NSF is the funding agency, so this is again a first-party source. The phys.org one is, again, a reprint of a press release ("Source: University of Washington"). Although it's not explicitly stated, the USA Today piece also reads like a press release. The best source I see is the Washington Post article suggeste by Happysquirrel. This is a good source, in a major newspaper, which discusses the topic in depth. But, it's just one source, and since I can't find any others, I'd have to say we this fails WP:GNG's multiple sources are generally expected. So, I'd say move to draft, work on finding better sources, do some serious rewriting of the article text, definitely find a better title (RAINEX comes to mind), and maybe at some point in the future it'll be ready to move back to mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.