Deletion of Cloudology

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: as either #A11 or #G3.  Considering the  nature of the keep proponents in this discussion, I'm beginning to smell as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:CSD||WP:SPA||WP:SOCK)

Comment: 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 , and they couldn't use any private knowledge not yet published because of our policy on original research . Hell, we'd even tell WATSON not to write the article himself ( and  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:OR||WP:OR||WP:AUTOBIO||WP:COI)

Comment: WP:N and . Specifically, . Feel free to remake this page when it's discussed by reputable, independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SPIP)