- 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 delete. Secret account 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Cloudology
- Cloudology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax. I can't find any refs for the Cloudology Institute or a Patrick Reed related to the term. Also, the study of clouds is nephology. Article flat out fails WP:GNG if it's not a hoax. Ish dar ian 05:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Cloudology isn't just the study of clouds, it's the art of photographing and then studying the clouds. It's a very new and contemporary field. There isn't very much on the web about it because it's small and relatively unheard of. And another reason you may not be able to find find anything is just because they don't pay for google hosting (it's a no income field and really more of a hobby). I have a cooy of patrick reed's Cloudology if you can't find one online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfankk ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Jamesfankk ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Also, adding to what janesfankk said, you seem to think that the CIA is a very large scale thing- it doesn't even have a building. It's more of an organization. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudophile (
talk •
contribs) 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC) —
Cloudophile (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
These two are very correct. Cloudology isn't a field of science that people enter to make money. There is almost no money to be made. Cloudologists simply have a passion for photographing clouds and examining them. "Cloudology" by Patrick Reed is not readily available online, but I too have a copy in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Strong delete due to lack of coverage of the field in independent reliable sources. There's no sign of any coverage in newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, etc. The only source anyone seems to mention is Patrick Reed's book. Since he's held out as the leading expert on the field, he can't verify his own field's notability. Since no other reliable source stands to show the notability, this topic should not have an article. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
James Frank and myself are also published authors on the subject in our online journals. I can provide other sources than Patrick Reed's "Cloudology", his is just the most notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The official citations will be up later this afternoon. I am at work and have no way to get them up right now. Please give me at least until 3 pm CST to have them up, as that is when i'm on my lunch break. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudsofband (
talk •
contribs) 14:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem should be solved...moving the little numbers to the appropriate places — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudsofband (
talk •
contribs) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The "official citations" are all to blogs at the blogspot website. As a rule, nothing hosted at blogspot is a reliable source. I don't see anything here to make these exceptions. Far from the problem being solved, this only reinforces my perception that this subject is not notable and should not have an article. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, C. Fred. I completely understand what you mean by not seeing BlogSpot as a reputable source. However, BlogSpot is merely being used as a place to post these publications, as they are not available on the market. If you'll note that BlogSpot isn't an author or a publisher, and merely a host, I think you'll understand better
And BlogSpot is not being used as a source, the documents on the BlogSpot page are the sources
- One of the three purported blogs was created today. The other two don't exist. Is there anybody else who thinks this should be speedy deleted under CSD A11, material that has been recently made up? — C.Fred ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The two blogs were created today to display the sources you were asking me to provide. I'm putting this in caps not because i'm angry but because I feel that nobody understands. THE SOURCES ARE THE DOCUMENTS ON BLOGSPOT NOT THE BLOGSPOT PAGE ITSELF. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudsofband (
talk •
contribs) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- In other words, the sources are essays that your colleagues wrote last year. I've tagged the article with {{ db-madeup}} as a result. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The dead links are typos, fixing now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have 10 Cloudologists in my neighborhood and 3 of them even work at my office. I don't understand how "phantom rings" are considered legitimate but a field of study I have dedicated a portion of my life to isn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as either WP:CSD#A11 or WP:CSD#G3. Considering the WP:SPA nature of the keep proponents in this discussion, I'm beginning to smell as WP:SOCK. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete If this isn't a hoax, it's a good approximation of one. The Cloudology page history says it was created TODAY. The blogs were reportedly created today. Maybe one should let the ink dry a bit before creating a WP page? LaMona ( talk) 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I'm glad someone's got a copy of Patrick Reed's book, because Amazon hasn't. In fact, the only ghits (two) are to do with this article. People have been photographing clouds and studying then since cameras were capable capturing images of clouds. Nothing new there. Blogs are not reliable independent sources. Whether or not someone has made up the term 'cloudology', there is no sign of notability. Someone on the talk page says that it is "small and relatively unheard of". That is, it's not notable - by our standards. Our field, our ball, our rules. Yes, we WOULD tell a student of Watson to avoid writing the article because of conflict of interest WP:COI, and they couldn't use any private knowledge not yet published because of our policy on original research WP:OR. Hell, we'd even tell WATSON not to write the article himself ( WP:OR and WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI). Peridon ( talk) 20:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, well I can wait for "the ink to dry a little bit" I suppose. But just because the blog is new doesn't mean the term or the field "Cloudology" is new. Cloudology just hasn't had a reason to be on the internet until now. We figured to help raise awareness we should start a Wiki page. The blogs were created to move the sources online. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pahafalagian (
talk •
contribs) 21:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This was also a national decision on part of the CIA, we took a vote to create a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahafalagian ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- So shall we add blatant promotion to the reasons to delete the page? — C.Fred ( talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:N and WP:OR. Specifically, WP:SPIP. Feel free to remake this page when it's discussed by reputable, independent sources. mol uɐɯ 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I will remake this... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudophile (
talk •
contribs) 22:08, 19 August 2014 (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.
- 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 delete. Secret account 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Cloudology
- Cloudology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax. I can't find any refs for the Cloudology Institute or a Patrick Reed related to the term. Also, the study of clouds is nephology. Article flat out fails WP:GNG if it's not a hoax. Ish dar ian 05:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Cloudology isn't just the study of clouds, it's the art of photographing and then studying the clouds. It's a very new and contemporary field. There isn't very much on the web about it because it's small and relatively unheard of. And another reason you may not be able to find find anything is just because they don't pay for google hosting (it's a no income field and really more of a hobby). I have a cooy of patrick reed's Cloudology if you can't find one online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfankk ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Jamesfankk ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Also, adding to what janesfankk said, you seem to think that the CIA is a very large scale thing- it doesn't even have a building. It's more of an organization. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudophile (
talk •
contribs) 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC) —
Cloudophile (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
These two are very correct. Cloudology isn't a field of science that people enter to make money. There is almost no money to be made. Cloudologists simply have a passion for photographing clouds and examining them. "Cloudology" by Patrick Reed is not readily available online, but I too have a copy in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Strong delete due to lack of coverage of the field in independent reliable sources. There's no sign of any coverage in newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, etc. The only source anyone seems to mention is Patrick Reed's book. Since he's held out as the leading expert on the field, he can't verify his own field's notability. Since no other reliable source stands to show the notability, this topic should not have an article. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
James Frank and myself are also published authors on the subject in our online journals. I can provide other sources than Patrick Reed's "Cloudology", his is just the most notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The official citations will be up later this afternoon. I am at work and have no way to get them up right now. Please give me at least until 3 pm CST to have them up, as that is when i'm on my lunch break. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudsofband (
talk •
contribs) 14:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem should be solved...moving the little numbers to the appropriate places — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudsofband (
talk •
contribs) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The "official citations" are all to blogs at the blogspot website. As a rule, nothing hosted at blogspot is a reliable source. I don't see anything here to make these exceptions. Far from the problem being solved, this only reinforces my perception that this subject is not notable and should not have an article. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, C. Fred. I completely understand what you mean by not seeing BlogSpot as a reputable source. However, BlogSpot is merely being used as a place to post these publications, as they are not available on the market. If you'll note that BlogSpot isn't an author or a publisher, and merely a host, I think you'll understand better
And BlogSpot is not being used as a source, the documents on the BlogSpot page are the sources
- One of the three purported blogs was created today. The other two don't exist. Is there anybody else who thinks this should be speedy deleted under CSD A11, material that has been recently made up? — C.Fred ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The two blogs were created today to display the sources you were asking me to provide. I'm putting this in caps not because i'm angry but because I feel that nobody understands. THE SOURCES ARE THE DOCUMENTS ON BLOGSPOT NOT THE BLOGSPOT PAGE ITSELF. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudsofband (
talk •
contribs) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- In other words, the sources are essays that your colleagues wrote last year. I've tagged the article with {{ db-madeup}} as a result. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The dead links are typos, fixing now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have 10 Cloudologists in my neighborhood and 3 of them even work at my office. I don't understand how "phantom rings" are considered legitimate but a field of study I have dedicated a portion of my life to isn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as either WP:CSD#A11 or WP:CSD#G3. Considering the WP:SPA nature of the keep proponents in this discussion, I'm beginning to smell as WP:SOCK. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete If this isn't a hoax, it's a good approximation of one. The Cloudology page history says it was created TODAY. The blogs were reportedly created today. Maybe one should let the ink dry a bit before creating a WP page? LaMona ( talk) 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I'm glad someone's got a copy of Patrick Reed's book, because Amazon hasn't. In fact, the only ghits (two) are to do with this article. People have been photographing clouds and studying then since cameras were capable capturing images of clouds. Nothing new there. Blogs are not reliable independent sources. Whether or not someone has made up the term 'cloudology', there is no sign of notability. Someone on the talk page says that it is "small and relatively unheard of". That is, it's not notable - by our standards. Our field, our ball, our rules. Yes, we WOULD tell a student of Watson to avoid writing the article because of conflict of interest WP:COI, and they couldn't use any private knowledge not yet published because of our policy on original research WP:OR. Hell, we'd even tell WATSON not to write the article himself ( WP:OR and WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI). Peridon ( talk) 20:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, well I can wait for "the ink to dry a little bit" I suppose. But just because the blog is new doesn't mean the term or the field "Cloudology" is new. Cloudology just hasn't had a reason to be on the internet until now. We figured to help raise awareness we should start a Wiki page. The blogs were created to move the sources online. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pahafalagian (
talk •
contribs) 21:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This was also a national decision on part of the CIA, we took a vote to create a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahafalagian ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- So shall we add blatant promotion to the reasons to delete the page? — C.Fred ( talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:N and WP:OR. Specifically, WP:SPIP. Feel free to remake this page when it's discussed by reputable, independent sources. mol uɐɯ 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I will remake this... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cloudophile (
talk •
contribs) 22:08, 19 August 2014 (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.