Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balloon Experiments with Amateur Radio

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Experiments with Amateur Radio

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

Original research. This article documents a personal experiment with a high-altitude balloon. All of the references refer to a personal website "documenting" the hobby. Mikeblas (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent verification of notability. It is a shame, as that looks like really interesting stuff. It just isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis (not WP:V/WP:RS, which shows failure to meet WP:GNG). Ansh666 01:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Striking since RS seem to have been found/added. Ansh666 19:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rise into the xenosphere and explode per Dennis. As creator of the article, I don't think I knew what GNG was back in 2009. RS: I just tried searching two words like BEAR and altitude together to rid the search of articles about bears, and still zippo. I'll keep a copy on my HD to possibly make into a related article section someday. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their activities get ample coverage. I added a reference link to a Wired magazine news article. [1] A link showing they were featured on Discovery Channel's show Daily Planet [2] and a link to a Daily Mail article [3] were already in the article. Not sure why anyone wouldn't see this as clearly notable based on coverage received. Dream Focus 15:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's different: this is an experimental high-altitude radio station, while those are just sending a camera up to space and getting it back when it falls. Ansh666 17:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is about the organization known as Balloon Experiments with Amateur Radio. All three sources are about them. Dream Focus 18:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahh, didn't notice that. Still, they all only talk about BEAR-4, as do all sources (reliable or not) that I found on the first few pages of a normal google search; google news came up with just this article. Should we maybe make an article for that launch alone and merge relevant info in? Ansh666 18:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (note: BEAR-4 currently exists as a redirect to this article, as presumably do the others, I haven't checked. Ansh666 18:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
      - Best to have it all here, about the group and their various projects. It does talk about them not just their launch. Dream Focus 18:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references (added) for anyone with the time to look. Thincat (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came across this article while researching aerial photography. If we keep it I can see about getting a commons category full of images. I may even join the group(s) here in Edmonton.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is definitely enough info to warrant having this article in Wikipedia. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Experimenters do not have to be professional to be notable. See citizen science. Warden (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are professional or not does not matter as far as notability. What does matter is how much coverage they have received. Warden, I suggest you brush up on AfD guidelines, some of your !votes recently have been quite questionable. Ansh666 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has RS now since the original AfD was posted. Btw, they are also sending images that may help readers appreciate the article. I found it when I was trying to do low cost aerial photography. They did have a notable first with the first HD video and a notable second with second highest flight. If you truly want to delete some lame articles then see Category:Photography by genre and the talk page there. Cloudscape photography? Is that like Fire hydrant photography? Fire hydrants make far better subjects than clouds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The RS listed on the article's page constitute WP:SIGCOV L Faraone 17:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination was quite reasonable, but thanks to good source finds by Thincat, this topic is referenced by multiple reliable sources and thus satisfies notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The article itself has few problems (reporting on BEAR-5 might be a bit premature). A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2013 (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.