Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. BryanG makes a good case for IAR here, and the deleters don't really offer any argument other than insisting on a rigid adherence to the MoS. Flowerparty☀ 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear[edit]

Nuclear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A disambiguation page normally has one single term that can be many things. This one has a list of names beginning "Nuclear", which goes against WP:MOSDAB:

To make matters worse, there are plenty of other articles in existence with titles beginning "Nuclear" that don't appear on this page. The user is hardly helped by being diverted here and missing a lot of them. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But you can just edit the disambig to fit your interpretation of MoSDAB, including linking through to other disambigs. Abductive (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that that would leave it empty. PL290 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can't be turned into a redirect? Not that I'm saying it should, just that this seems to be "soluble" by editing. Abductive (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you keep reading below the bit that you quote, you will see that it supports the inclusion of Jefferson County at Jefferson (disambiguation), among other things. Disambiguation pages are highly important for purposes such as this one is fulfilling right now. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's bad reasoning. A place named Jefferson County is sometimes known as and is sometimes called, simply "Jefferson", therefore it is disambiguated at the title Jefferson. Please name one thing that is known as, or called, a "nuclear". Also note that "nuclear" is an adjective. "Jefferson" is a noun, in contrast. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) for more on this. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- lots of incoming links need somewhere to go. Needs to be cleaned up to remove many entries, but nuclear physics, nuclear energy, and cell nucleus (or nuclear protein) seem like they'd need to be kept. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly there are not even two articles listed that are ambiguous. The page is not actually a disambgiguation page at all but merely a list of articles contain nuclear or even related words from the same root. (This is one of most off-base disambiguation pages I have ever seen.) See WP:DISAMBIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawn Some (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dab page and redirect Nuclear to the Nucleus disambiguation page instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need to delete before using the ordinary editing tool to make a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how to !vote for that then. Should my !vote simply been Redirect? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nucular. No, seriously, Delete as an improper dab, doesn't dab anything at all really. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) says that adjectives such this should redirect to the corresponding nouns, which would of course be nucleus. However, you make a better point than you realize. Presuming such a redirect to be enacted, which does not require the deletion tool, how is a reader to get to nucular from "nuclear"? Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not from a disambiguation page, since they are different words. Drawn Some (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from the disambiguation page. If Nuclear redirects to Nucleus, then Nucular should be added to Nucleus (in the See also section, at least). Different words can be ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep essentially in the spirit of WP:IAR. I'm looking at this from the reader's perspective: someone searching for "nuclear" is probably looking for nuclear physics, nuclear power, or nuclear weapon, not nucleus. Since none of those terms could plausibly be put on the nucleus disambiguation page, I dislike redirecting to there. Yes, I'm well aware that this page violates MOSDAB, but in my opinion it's justified in this case. BryanG (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In practice it's useful for navigation, which is all the justification necessary.If it doesnt follow the usual way we do it, that's not an argument to delete, but an argument to recognize that these loosely constructed pages are also acceptable. DGG (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But is it useful for navigation, or is it in fact obstructive to navigation? Consider: a user looking for Nuclear technology or Nuclear terrorism, on typing the first seven characters "Nuclear" in the Go/Search box, is offered Nuclear. But neither term is found there (although it has been necessary to read a full page to discover that). The same is true if Nuclear is redirected to Nucleus or anywhere else. Whereas, if Nuclear is deleted, the user may now:
  • Continue typing more characters, "Nuclear t", and see the required title right there as it pops up in the Go/Search box; this is probably perfect, but otherwise:
  • Use Search, including by prefix to find titles starting "Nuclear" (which currently number about 350, of which an arbitrary 24 are listed by Nuclear).
PL290 (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or redirect to nucleus. Since "Nuclear" is an adjective, it is always used in conjunction with a noun; therefore none of the articles should be known simply as "nuclear". Per WP:DAB, disambiguations exist to help one find the page they are looking for when multiple articles are known by the same term. None of these articles are known by simply as "nuclear" so it violates the purpose of a disambiguation and should be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete with no redirect. I agree with Tavix. This page doesn't disambiguate anything. There is not a single article listed on the page where "Nuclear" (with nothing following) would arguably be the best name for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That will turn current blue links into red links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links pointing to it probably ought to be pointing somewhere more specific anyway. Anyhow, there are less than a hundred such links in the article space, so they could all be fixed within a short time. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuclear&oldid=1138172323"