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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

METRIC[edit]

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

Article about a mathematical model in hydrology. No references and no notability claimed. There are very many models around and there is no evidence given that this one deserves special mention. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not that many hydrological models included in Wikipedia. This is actually the only one which deals with the mapping of evapotranspiration. If there is any other solving the same problem which has a higher notability, this one could be deleted. But I see no point in deleting an article which deals with a problem which is not covered by other wikipedia articles. Afil (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd care to point out others with the same issues, I'll be happy to deal with them. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources, as required by the WP:GNG. If extra sources are added to the article, feel feel to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presented and/or cited in many reliable academic sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] are just among the first results in Gscholar. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the first results in Gscholar" is not enough. Wikipedia articles require independent in-depth coverage in secondary sources (which in this case boils down to review articles and text books). Textual search hits is not enough, see WP:GHITS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, have you seen the hits? I've linked them above. I mentioned Gscholar just to notice that it was fairly easy to find them, not just to count hits. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:56, 24 June 2013 (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.