Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undulatus asperatus


 * 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-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant    talk    16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Undulatus asperatus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE all apply. The article is about a proposed addition to the standard classification for clouds. However that proposed new class has not (yet) been accepted by the meteorological community. When and if it does gain acceptance, then an article can be created on it. Suggest this be moved to someone's user space. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to me to pass straightforward notability criteria. The article should make it obvious it is just proposal but the proposal has been reliably sourced and is of general interest. Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (as article author). I don't create articles about non-notable subjects, and the intent here was not to discuss the name as a neologism for something.  This one was the subject of quite a bit of major press, and didn't have a Wikipedia article about it.  The press covered it as the discovery of a new cloud type, something that may or may be true whether or not the scientific community wishes to classify it that way.  If they do, that does in fact support that it is notable as a type of cloud.  If they do not, it may be a type of cloud that doesn't have a classification, or it may simply be a series of events leading to a failed proposal, which is also notable based on the coverage.  Emerging scientific theories and rejected ones, observations, systems that are not yet adopted, etc., all are subject to standard notability criteria.  Cold Fusion seems a good example of that.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This topic is the subject of multiple in-depth and high profile coverage in the general press. WP:NEOLOGISM does not apply: Wikipedia is not needed to promote this neologism because it has not just been used but explained in the media. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because even in the event that this type of cloud formation is not accepted in the International Cloud Atlas, it will of course still be used, although possibly as a subcategory of one of the other cloud formations. WP:UNDUE makes no sense for something that has been reported so widely (National Geographic, New York Times, USA Today, Guardian, Toronto Star, MSNBC, CBS News, Daily Mail), and I am not convinced there are any neutrality issues in the first place (WP:UNDUE is a section of WP:NPOV).
 * That said, I am surprised that I did not find any mention of this cloud type in the scientific literature. If I missed part of the story and there is good evidence that this was just one media coup that wasn't taken seriously by meteorologists, then I would have to think about this again. Hans Adler 22:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That last concern is what prompted me to nominate. Perhaps this is a "Deletionist" vs. "Inclusionist" thing, but I think we need some sort of evidence that it wasn't just a media coup and that it was taken seriously by Meteorologists, rather than the other way around.  Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The photos were quite dramatic (perhaps why various media agencies picked up the story), but all of the coverage seems to be about the proposal by the Cloud Appreciation Society, not about the validity of the cloud itself as a new type. A  comment by a meteorologist in one of the articles indicates his opinion was that it fit under the classification of a cumulus cloud.  All other assertions in articles appear to be from the single source of the leader of the Cloud Appreciation Society (who has no meteorological training). HiFlyChick (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Undulatus until such time as the proposal is accepted. The information is worthy of being preseved, but giving it a seperate article gives undue weight to a proposal. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Acceptable to the nominator. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Acceptable to me as well. Hans Adler 01:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A good compromise, perhaps with less weight being given to the proponent's point of view (i.e. that the term is not recognized, nor is the proposal endorsed by meteorologists) HiFlyChick (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A problem here is that it redirects to Altostratus undulatus cloud. Dmcq (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * keep per Hans Adler. The subject is currently a WP:Fringe one, but shows enough general notability and is presented in a way that is consistent with our policy on Fringe Material. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any indication that this is a "fringe" or POV issue? I have no boat in this race, nor am I an expert or involved in meteorology other than having worked with some professional meteorologists and being an interested layperson - I just read major respectable publications reporting on this as a real issue.  And if it is being taken up as a serious proposal for discussion with the society, that suggests it's a legitimate proposal whether or not accepted, not a PR event.  Did they all get hoodwinked?  Merging is a different question entirely having to do with organization of information, not notability.  If we decide project-wide to put all the sub-types of clouds into the parent article, then we should for this one too, and the circumstances around the discovery and proposal as notable as they are would logically fit in that section rather than as a standalone article.  On the other hand, if we do have articles for different types of meteorological events and objects that are not distinct classifications, this one would logically stand on its own feet as an independent article subject.  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All the Google Scholar hits for "undulatus asperatus" are for things that are not scholarly articles. Of course this only shows that the term "undulatus asperatus" has so far not appeared in the literature. Possible explanations include: Maybe Scholars refer to the cloud formation in a different way, so perhaps the article should be renamed. Or maybe meteorologists, at least in the area relevant here, are old-fashioned enough not to publish preprints on the web, in which case we might have to wait another year for articles that were written last year or earlier to appear. (Publishing delays of 5 years or so due to peer review and other factors are not unheard-of.) But still, it doesn't look too good. Hans Adler 08:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see how either NEOLOGISM, CRYSTAL or UNDUE apply at all. --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2011 (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.