Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Calutron Girls

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 snow keep. Closing a few hours early as it's obvious that consensus is not going to change. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Calutron Girls[edit]

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

No claim of significance. The article is dependent on one reference. Fails GNG CatcherStorm ^talk 18:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article reads like a conspiracy theory, and is sourced to some unreliable website, I don't think it reaches the need for WP:TNT. And the topic does seem notable: a quick look at the Google Books shows there are, indeed, sources. There's less at GSchoolar, but still I feel there's enough, and I am afraid this is a failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added File:Y12 Calutron Operators.jpg, a quote "famous" photo by Ed Westcott, that we already had on Commons and already used in Manhattan Project from where I have linked to The Calutron Girls. I have further added seven cite books. Subject is notable and meets GNG. Should likely be moved to Calutron Girls per WP:NCTHE. There's really no need to tag articles like this for deletion 3 minutes after they are created. If an IP or non-autoconfirmed user had requested Calutron Girls at WP:AFC/R I would have had no hesitation with making a change to Manhattan Project similar to this (without the wikilink, of course), and create the redirect as a categorized {{R to related topic}}. Should it be merged into Manhattan Project? Perhaps, but that's a question about merging, not deleting. — Sam Sailor 00:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important history. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: There are a few sources through Google Scholar that discuss this as well as a few books that I found through Google Books. I agree that this appears to be an example of a failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator (it happens to the best of us). Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Sam Sailor - I removed on sight the conspiracy theories. I don't see that article growing a lot, but Manhattan project is already fairly large and there is no other natural merge target. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've already moved the article. Lourdes 08:10, 8 February 2017 (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.