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.
No evidence that the subject of the article exists. For example it says that rainfall was increased by 30% but provides no proof.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
19:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I've removed the specific statistic the nominator contested. The topic certainly exists, although we have to be wary of
WP:FRINGE sources. Potential reliable sources include:
"The military, largely through the Air Force, advanced a series of projects investigating the potential of weather and climate control, manipulation, and ultimately weaponisation. These programs, which were sometimes linked to US Department of Agriculture programs aimed at improving agricultural production, persisted for decades. Some of the newly developed tools were deployed: local climate manipulation efforts during the Vietnam conflict were aimed at impeding traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, with mixed results. Significant efforts came during the Weather Bureau leadership of Francis W. Reichelderfer, whose papers contain a wealth of information about efforts ranging from cloud seeding to proposals to drop atomic weapons on hurricanes. These papers, along with those of Weather Bureau scientist Harry Wexler, provide a fascinating window to a time when the US military and scientific establishment seemed poised to grasp the levers of power over nature itself. This paper describes these little-studied programs, and situates these efforts within the broader military science programs accompanying the emergence of air warfare, as well as post-war science programs aimed at countering the Soviet challenge."
Whether or not
Operation Popeye was successful isn't relevant to this deletion discussion, because "has been used successfully" isn't an inclusion criteria for articles about military technologies. We wouldn't delete the FA
Project Excalibur just because the technology it researched was never used outside of tests.
Jfire (
talk)
23:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I read that someone attempted to hide themselves by using invisible ink but that does not make invisible ink a notable method of camoflage. Just attempting something does not make it exist
Chidgk1 (
talk)
12:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
dubious I created this article as a humble stub many moons ago
[1] and I think it was better then, without the dodgy claims. Perhaps revert back to that or similar? OTOH, no-one has shown any great interest in improving it, so razing it to the ground would be no great loss
William M. Connolley (
talk)
09:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - The sources identified by
Jfire above (and some casual Google Scholar searches) convince me that there's enough for a GNG pass here. The article might not be in great shape, but I don't see it as reaching
WP:TNT; any cleanup that is required can be done through normal editing procedures instead. Noting that I'm
WP:AGF on some of the sources. -
Ljleppan (
talk)
10:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep with the sources identified above. Might not work as a weapon, but the process is documented, that's all that matters for GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Topic is notable and sufficiently documented to source at least a short article, so keep. Caveat editor and some weeding required, I guess. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
13:42, 6 March 2023 (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.