Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glossary of Meteorology

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 Merge to American Meteorological Society. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:56Z

The Glossary of Meteorology[edit]

Delete - article does not assert notability, indeed, notes that the publication is of little importance. If not deleted then merge to American Meteorological Society. Otto4711 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to American Meteorological Society. Many organizations have publications, but not many of those have independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody altered the original article by adding language that diminished the importance of both editions of the Glossary. Actually, the article was vandalized in my opinion. The original Glossary was well used by scientists for more than forty years before a second edition was deemed required. The first edition was a major addition to science. This article should be restored to the original state and them improved, but the comments that the Glossary became quickly out of date and as such is/was useless was and is not only inaccurate but absurd. Please consider this quote from the AMS:'

"Forty-one years ago, the AMS published the Glossary of Meteorology. Containing 7900 terms, more than 10,000 copies have been sold over four decades through five printings. It is a tribute to the editors of the first edition that it has withstood the test of time and continued to be among the leading reference sources in meteorology and related sciences. This is the electronic version of the second edition of the Glossary with more than 12,000 terms. Along with the print version it should be the authoritative source for definitions of meteorological terms for many years to come."

The editing of the original article is unsupported by any evidence and is a rather silly and ill informed claim that attacks the value of this important book.

10,000 copies sold over 40 years? That's, what, 250 copies a year? Not too impressive. Otto4711 05:20, 28 December 2006 (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.