Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ball light

IMHO it is not a good idea to merge a part of this text into Ball Lightning page. The page describes histories beginning from 1658. Since then above 200 theories and hypothesis were proposed, above 2000 papers and reports were published. It is impossible to present this knowledge in a single page. Less that 10 percent is presented in the page. Any new hypothesis or theory can be presented in the page by a single string in the best case without violation of an accepted structure of the page.

For example, there is a similar situation with “atom”. One can find out separate pages entitled Plum pudding model, Rutherford model, Atomic shell model, Bohr model, Liquid drop model where various models of atom are presented. Analogously, various models of Ball Lightning can be presented also.

As for assertion that the page is an original research, that in accordance with the same wikipedia The term original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources’’. The material was published in 12 reliable sources which are peer reviewed International Journals. There are no analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources. Thus, this is not an original research as it is defined in Wikipedia.

Most suitable for deletion is Wikipedia section: Deletion policy in accordance with which the following requirement must be satisfied Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

A review in the Handbook of Solitons: Research, Technology and Applications which was prepared by editors S.P. Lang and S.H. Bedore. New York: Novapublishers. pp. 3–54 is such secondary source. Analysis of 12 papers published in peer reviewed Journals in English in period 2003-2010 is presented by these editors.

In accordance with Wikipedia the name "handbook" may sometimes be applied to reference works that are not pocket-sized, but do provide ready reference, as is the case with several engineering handbooks such as Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Marks Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, and the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Handbooks are widely used in the sciences as quick references for various kinds of data.

Thus, formal requirements that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources are satisfied. A full list of 12 papers published in peer reviewed Journals in English in period 2003-2010 is presented in discussion section of Ball Lightning page.

Vladimir Torchigin (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)