Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line echo wave pattern

Line echo wave pattern

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

This page makes absolutely no sense. There are several grammar errors, the page does not include a single source, and I have never even heard of a Line echo wave pattern. It was created by a user with a history of creating pages that were deleted. United States Man (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OBSCURE and WP:POORLY. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your not knowing of it has no bearing whatsoever on its existence. LEWPs are very real and very common^[1]. I was shocked that we didn't already have a page on this. Page makes complete and total sense. Brief, maybe, but definitely understandable. There is not one single grammatical error in the entire stub of an article I just barely got started today. As for me, my past has no bearing on the validity of this article per policy. I can reference a couple of sources if you want. This should've been brought up on the talk page, not taken to AfD. Also, I'm going on vacation today for a week, so I will most likely not be available to participate in the discussion, if any, this week. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 05:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up -- I sourced a NWS source and added an image from that source. More can be added. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 05:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please remain civil, everyone. Here is a search on NOAA which shows that LEWP is indeed a well-defined technical term in meteorology. This one is a nice example which we can probably use in the article as NOAA images are public domain (someone please confirm?). There is no shortage of sources. I have added a few references to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know the article creator has had a history of creating controversial articles (and I've historically been on the Deletion side of those AFDs), but this article should be on Wikipedia. It's referenced (now), and easily passes WP:GNG. As for the poor grammar, that's not a reason to delete the article; just fix it. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a lot of work has been done and I may have been a bit overzealous in nominating it for deletion. Therefore I will no longer push the deletion. 24.179.85.150 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.crh.noaa.gov/iwx/?n=severestorms_2011apr19

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.crh.noaa.gov/iwx/?n=severestorms_2011apr19

[1]