Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear briefcase

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 Keep. There is no consensus about the propriety or target of a merge below. Discussion should continue on the appropriate Talk pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear briefcase[edit]

Fixing incomplete AfD. Original nomination below: Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion as Nuclear briefcase is redundant and inferior to Nuclear Football and Cheget, I propose the article be deleted as it has no information independent of the aforementioned articles, and have "Nuclear briefcase" redirect to Nuclear Football --Pstanton (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the references to Cheget. If a redirect to that article is not desirable, care should be taken to give credit to the original suppliers of the refs (and the article should redirect to Nuclear Football instead. What has this got to do with football? I'd be inclined to move the whole thing the other way around...- Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Nuclear Football" is the proper name (notice the capital 'F') of the briefcase carried around with the President of the United States - not because it has anything to do with football, just because that's the way it is. That should be verifiable in the refs of that article. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheget as per nom and mgm, and turn page into disambig. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added pertinent info into Cheget. I would suggest simply now making it a disambig page. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets give the AfD time to run it's course and User:Biophys (article author who objected to redirect in edit summaries) time to state his case. Waiting a few days won't hurt us and as far as I'm concerned this is the first day of this AfD since the page wasn't tagged until today. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe U.S. "Nuclear football" article has several references, although it is full of speculation and original research. The problems can be corrected via editing and properly citing sources, and removing what is unsourced. This article seems fine as an overall coverage of the topic of the briefcase/satchel used to keep communication devices and menus of nuclear strike options near those world leaders who have nuclear strike capabilities. It mentions the U.S. and Russia, but I expect that Israel, UK, China, India, and Pakistan also have a military aide somewhere near their leaders or military commanders as well to allow military responses, including nuclear, with the immediacy required in the nuclear age, as well as authenticating orders for the use of the weapons. There are commonalities in nuclear command and control which make it useful to have an article rather than just a disambiguation page. Edison (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The phrase turns up about 2,000 ghits (although, ironically, the first is to our own nuclear football article), suggesting that, rightly or wrongly, the term is at least notable. But, since we already have an article under the more correct term, merge this one with that. Anaxial (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then probably merge. Nominating article for deletion is not the way to debate merging.Biophys (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"rv - please suggest merging for debate or use AfD" (quote, Biophys). I interpret User:Pstantons comment as suggesting that there is no salvagable content or no new content in the source article. In any case use of AfD to determine whether a fork is meaningful or not is certainly not a new thing. It's an effective way of pulling alot of previously unaware attention to an article and certainly more effecticient than WP:RFC or CAT:MERGE att attracting comments. Whether it's right or wrong I leave to religion. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What religion? "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD", tells official policy. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers instead.Biophys (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking through the sources available from Google Books and Google News it seems that this term is used about equally to refer either to the American and Russian briefcase, with a few exceptions, for example: this discusses both the American and Russian; this seems to be about nuclear briefcases in general; this mentions the Israeli one; and this the British. In this situation we can best serve our readers by making this an article about the concept in general and linking to the particular cases (in two senses of the word) that have their own articles. Redirecting to either the American or Russian article wouldn't make sense as this term is not specific to one or the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 29 January 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.