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. No prejudice towards merge to WSR-88D, but the outcome is not delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MESO-SAILS[edit]

MESO-SAILS (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)

I very much doubt that this (whatever it is) is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate? This is entirely legitimate, I've seen no other articles covering the system, so I decided to make one about it for those studying Radar Meteorology. GlueManGoop (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC) (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - seems to be a fine little stub of an article, but I also doubt it has enough newspaper coverage or other coverage to pass WP:GNG. I suggest a complete merge to WSR-88D, with the creation of a new section and a redirect left behind. Yvarta (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be such a bad idea. Didn't come to mind at first. I'll simplify it some, and *may* remove the individual article and i will create a section within WSR-88D. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge per above. Whatever this is there seems to be plenty of reliable sources that support notability. As currently written it suffers from techo-speak. It was very easy to find reliable sources that discuss it in various levels of detail.

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] It looks like there's enough material to expand the article although it's beyond my understanding. Gab4gab (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : At the moment, there is no explanation of the concept of MESO-SAILS at all but this is not a reason to eliminate it! With the cited references, it would be easy to expand it. This is more accepteable as an article than Volumetric Imaging and Processing of Integrated Radar which seems to me a commercial advertisement. A merge seems to be only a second best option. Pierre cb (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more contents to make a real article out of it. Pierre cb (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the VIPIR article. Didn't realize that an article for it existed! I've always seen it as commercialized, which I try to avoid, given MESO-SAILS was developed by the National Weather Service themselves. (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be safe to remove the deletion discussion template now that the article is coming together nicely, thanks to your contributions? :) (talk) 3:41, February 8 2017 (UTC)

• In answer to @GlueManGoop:, above, no, please don't remove the Afd template until the discussion has been closed by an administrator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Got it, @Shawn in Montreal:, noted. Patience is a virtue. 4:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, this may continue for a couple more weeks, depending up the judgment of a passing administrator. It will be extended once, twice more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2017 (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.