Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather warfare

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weather warfare

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence that the subject of the article exists. For example it says that rainfall was increased by 30% but provides no proof. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed the specific statistic the nominator contested. The topic certainly exists, although we have to be wary of WP:FRINGE sources. Potential reliable sources include:

Weiss, Edith Brown (1975). "Weather control: An instrument for war?". Survival. 17 (2): 64–68. doi:10.1080/00396337508441533. ISSN 0039-6338.
Davis, Ray Jay (1972). "Weather Warfare: Law and Policy". Arizona Law Review. 14: 659.
Pincus, Rebecca (2017-01-02). "'To Prostitute the Elements': Weather Control and Weaponisation by US Department of Defense". War & Society. 36 (1): 64–80. doi:10.1080/07292473.2017.1295539. ISSN 0729-2473.
Harper, Kristine C. (2008-03-01). "Climate control: United States weather modification in the cold war and beyond". Endeavour. 32 (1): 20–26. doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2008.01.006. ISSN 0160-9327.

Jfire (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a quote from one of those sources of any successful attack or defense to prove that the subject exists? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the abstract of Pincus (2017):

"The military, largely through the Air Force, advanced a series of projects investigating the potential of weather and climate control, manipulation, and ultimately weaponisation. These programs, which were sometimes linked to US Department of Agriculture programs aimed at improving agricultural production, persisted for decades. Some of the newly developed tools were deployed: local climate manipulation efforts during the Vietnam conflict were aimed at impeding traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, with mixed results. Significant efforts came during the Weather Bureau leadership of Francis W. Reichelderfer, whose papers contain a wealth of information about efforts ranging from cloud seeding to proposals to drop atomic weapons on hurricanes. These papers, along with those of Weather Bureau scientist Harry Wexler, provide a fascinating window to a time when the US military and scientific establishment seemed poised to grasp the levers of power over nature itself. This paper describes these little-studied programs, and situates these efforts within the broader military science programs accompanying the emergence of air warfare, as well as post-war science programs aimed at countering the Soviet challenge."

Jfire (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“with mixed results” sounds like nobody can actually prove they impeded traffic at all Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Operation Popeye was successful isn't relevant to this deletion discussion, because "has been used successfully" isn't an inclusion criteria for articles about military technologies. We wouldn't delete the FA Project Excalibur just because the technology it researched was never used outside of tests. Jfire (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the Operation Popeye article Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources identified by Jfire show that the topic is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply a quote from one of those sources of any successful attack or defense to prove that the subject exists? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, we have plenty of articles about topics that do not exist, such as Time travel and Perpetual motion and Bigfoot and James Bond and Don Draper to name just a few. What counts is coverage of the topic in reliable sources, not its lack of existence. Cullen328 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. It was attempted in Vietnam and may be again in future. Mztourist (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read that someone attempted to hide themselves by using invisible ink but that does not make invisible ink a notable method of camoflage. Just attempting something does not make it exist Chidgk1 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something wasn't successful, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also see Operation Popeye. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dubious I created this article as a humble stub many moons ago [1] and I think it was better then, without the dodgy claims. Perhaps revert back to that or similar? OTOH, no-one has shown any great interest in improving it, so razing it to the ground would be no great loss William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chidgk1. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to delete not keep Chidgk1 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources identified by Jfire above (and some casual Google Scholar searches) convince me that there's enough for a GNG pass here. The article might not be in great shape, but I don't see it as reaching WP:TNT; any cleanup that is required can be done through normal editing procedures instead. Noting that I'm WP:AGF on some of the sources. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the topic is notable, there’s so many issues with the article that WP:TNT is an appropriate mitigation strategy. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the sources identified above. Might not work as a weapon, but the process is documented, that's all that matters for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is notable and sufficiently documented to source at least a short article, so keep. Caveat editor and some weeding required, I guess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 6 March 2023 (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.