Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthquake cloud


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake cloud

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lots of unsourced statements (possibly OR), all sourced statements are from one website and one New Scientist article. As far as I can tell, the author of the one website the article is based upon has no publications in any Peer-Reviewed journal, thus WP:Reliable sources is a factor. Having its own article gives undue weight to a fringe theory; it should at most be covered by a few sentences at earthquake weather.  Running On  Brains  20:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. DreamGuy (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly needs improving, but I don't think removal is justified by the need for better sourcing. I cannot say whether it is a fringe theory or not, but more than one editor has contributed significantly to the article, which indicates some level of interest in the subject. I am not strictly opposed to a merger, but do not remove the article before the merge has been completed. --Macumba (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article makes reference to an additional source in-line ("SEMINARS of the United Nations Programme on Space Applications 16, 39-63 (2005)") and a cursory Google scholar search turned up several other publications  . The article already includes a skeptic disclaimer. –   7 4   00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Three of those four you mention above are either by or mentioning the same man: Zhonghao Shou. Except for the one article by Guangmeng Guo and Bin Wang, the entirety of studies on this supposed phenomenon have all been by one person, which is simply not right by Wikipedia standards. I also would be supportive of a merge to earthquake weather, as long as it is given due weight (a few sentences at most) and sourced properly and impartially.- Running On  Brains  00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you check the references for the specified articles? Although they might not use the term "earthquake cloud", at least some appear reasonably likely to support the theoretical process (e.g. Saraf, A. K. and Choudhury, S. (2005) NOAA-AVHRR detects thermal anomaly associated with 26 January, 2001 Bhuj earthquake, Gujarat, India.. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 26, pp. 1065-1073.; Morozova, L. I. (1997) Dynamics of cloudy anomalies above fracture regions during natural and anthropogenically caused seismic activities.. Fizika Zemli, 9, pp. 94-96.; Tronin, A., Hayakawa, M. and Molchanov, O. A. (2002) Thermal IR satellite data application for earthquake research in Japan and China.. Journal of Geodynamics, 33, pp. 519-534.). Also, peer-reviewed journal articles are a de facto reliable source indicating at least some community support for the ideas presented. The ultimate question isn't whether the theory is correct, but whether the theory is verifiable and notable; I think both have been established at this point. –  7 4   04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My entire issue with this article had been that it was written almost completely off the research of one independent scientist and one other paper by a duo, with no more reliable sources available. Google was unhelpful; I did not think to check the references in the the Guo and Wang paper. Assuming those papers actually say what their titles suggest (which I have no reason to doubt), it seems that serious research has indeed been done. I wish I could actually find those papers online so I could clean up the article; I'll see what I can do after my break. In short, Withdrawn. - Running On  Brains  04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep article contains lots of useful and interesting information. Unionsoap (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — Unionsoap (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (disputed)
 * Funny, another brand new editor as of only a few days whose only edits have been to participate in deletion votes and who instantly create a user page so the red link on his name goes away. Same thing happened recently over on some other article being defended by the same guy. Curious. The messages on the user page seems to be a copy of that other user. That user was determined to be a sockpuppet and stricken, doing same here. It might be nice if we figure out who was controlling these socks and get them blocked.... DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy, I find reason enough to unstrike this !vote (not that I find its rationale particularly compelling). The user participated in article space before starting in AfD, and has 100+ edits, several of which passed a cursory review. If you can substantiate your claim of sockpuppetry then you should do so in the appropriate forum. Otherwise, this !vote (and your comment) will be given the weight they deserve. –  7 4   01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * New accounts typically aren't allowed to vote to avoid fraud. The edit history of this individual at the time th vote was made was very short and superficial, and most of the edits have been votes. Whether this is a sockpuppet (funn how people always just want to throw up red tape to avoid clear problems) are just someone new off the street, his vote (and your cranky response above) hold no weight. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I find his behavior here less problematic than your own. Let it be; the closing admin will be quite capable of sorting it out. –  7 4   15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy has been blocked. Just because I am new doesn't mean that I can't take part in a discussion. It is up to the closing admin to assign weight to the comments, not DreamGuy. Unionsoap (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR, WP:RS. Macarion (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the discussion. I won't strike your comment, but I will point out that due to your account's track record and the lack of rationale presented, your !vote is unlikely to be given much weight. You might find WP:VAGUEWAVE informational. Please feel free to reformulate your statement if you would like. –  7 4   19:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty odd comment. If you agree that this person's track record means the vote should have little to no weight, considering that this person's edit history (weak that it is) is substantially longer than that of a brand new account you defended above. Self-contradictory much? DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the amount of warnings etc. associated with this account, not an edit count. I suspect that the closing admin will take this information into account; I do not presume that I am allowed to arbitrarily cancel other users' !votes because I don't like them. Does that clarify your confusion? –  7 4   15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  05:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - it needs a lot of work, a huge references-overhaul... and it can't have that if deleted! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - certainly an article of interest, as there is much new insights here. Saying that, it does fall into OR, and unless more inline citations can be added to establish to the contrary, I guess it might have to go. Stefansquintet (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OR only applies to unpublished research; the research in this article has been published in a number of WP:RS, so OR does not apply. Also, see the discussion above regarding other research in the field. –  7 4   20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.