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. ✗plicit 03:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aerography (meteorology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Stub that has been unsourced since its creation and largely consists of definitions of terms that have their own pages. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- (strong) -- uncited stub. As a (former) military meteorologist, the only time I've ever even heard this term is in-reference to the U.S. Navy's 'aerographer's mate' rating. My policy argument would likely be NOTDICT.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources at all. Anktjha (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - content covered by articles such as Skew-T and Radiosonde. Also unsourced. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2025 (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.