Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line echo wave pattern
- 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The result was Speedy Keep - nomination withdrawn. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Line echo wave pattern (edit | 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 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]
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. YE 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. United States Man (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you withdraw this nomination? YE Pacific Hurricane 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead. United States Man (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you withdraw this nomination? YE Pacific Hurricane 01:54, 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. United States Man (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
[edit]- 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]
- 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.