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. (non-administrative closure) — _Maggot^Syn 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment[edit]

Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not appear to be a notable experiment or organization, and fails to cite secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GEWEX is a long term ongoing project, with many results already compiled. From a (admittedly quick) Google search, I've discovered that several international conferences specifically dealing with GEWEX have been held -- for example, the fourth conference in 2001, the fifth general conference in 2005 (with a special edition of the Journal of Hydrometeorology dedicated to its proceedings), and a specific Sixth International Study Conference on GEWEX in Asia and GAME in 2004. The World Climate Research Programme, which GEWEX is part of, has several publications and reports on GEWEX as well. NASA has funded and operated several projects under the GEWEX umbrella, such as the Global Aerosol Climatology Project and the GEWEX Radiation Panel.
  The article definitely needs work from a NPOV standpoint, and the sourcing and extent of the article can be expanded, but it already cites several secondary sources, enough to demonstrate sufficient significance and notability to retain the article while it is worked on. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 14 references to extremely reliable sources: nasa, jpl, utoronto.ca, etc, etc. More references in the news exist. Third party reference exist as well. May need editing but how is a global scientific experiment of this magnitude not notable? (not a rhetorical question) Faradayplank (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The article concentrates on the wrong aspects of this project, and needs a thorough cleanup. But this is no grounds for deletion: just grounds for withholding promotion of this article on the quality scale. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and gut it's a notable org but the article is a mess and the COI/spam makes it hard to see that clearly. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seem to be plenty of sources, and even if the COI is there, I don't see it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (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.