Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear missile

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 of the debate was redirect to Nuclear weapons delivery. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear missile

Does this look like a dis-ambiguation page for multiple meanings of the term?? Not to me. To me, it looks like 2 ways to classify a nuclear missile. Is this really a dis-ambiguation page?? If not, delete. Georgia guy 17:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as a redirect to Nuclear weapon. The other meaning might be better described as a "nuclear-powered missile" MartinRe 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Target suggested by Meegs is a better choice. MartinRe 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MartinRe, but probably to Nuclear weapons delivery instead of Nuclear weapon. There are about 40 incoming links to the page right now — I didn't look at all of them, but I didn't see any science fiction referring to a nuclear-propelled missiles. ×Meegs 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we can't seem to agree where to redirect it, but we all seem to agree this is useless. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? How is a redlink less useful than a disputed redirect? Obvious keep. Figure out where to point it on the talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation. Calwatch 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep as a disambig or decide to redirect it somewhere. This is clearly a search term that is likely to come up, so deleting it would make little sense. It should lead to something. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nuclear weapon. Nobody is typing in "Nuclear missle" in hopes of reading the generic "missle" article. -- MisterHand 21:31, 29 January 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.