Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinc-68

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 redirect to Isotopes of zinc. As noted by the last comment, the text is basically a copyright violation from this source, so we cannot really merge. I'll clean the page history Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc-68[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This isotope appears to fail WP:GNG because there do not appear to be any sources with a specific focus on this isotope; at best, there are passing mentions or generic references to many isotopes, and no non-trivial applications or properties are given. Furthermore, most of the content of this article is about the element zinc rather than the isotope zinc-68 (in which case it is duplication). Expansion from new sources seems difficult if not impossible, and invoking WP:IRI would leave no non-trivial content in this article. Hence, I propose a redirect to Isotopes of zinc in the same format as redirects for other non-notable isotopes. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not independently notable but the isotopes article could mention which isotopes have applications. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per nom, with whose arguments I agree. Most isotopes (especially stable isotopes) aren't independently notable, and this is one of them. Narky Blert (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merge as originally proposed - The only thing on the entire page that is referenced is the fact that it is an isotope of zinc, and those references are to a company's catalog entry, and a 404 error page. As per nom, the remainder of the text deals with zinc in general and not specifically Zn68, except for the sentence: "Zinc-68 is considered non-toxic in healthy doses but can cause nausea if taken in excess" which as a health claim should not be said without a MEDRS citation. While there are some details in the infobox not on the target page it is likewise uncited and does not fit with the layout of that page. In other words, there is nothing to merge that isn't more trouble than it's worth (that is not to say the Isotopes of zinc page couldn't use some work, but that work wouldn't be appreciably furthered by what little could be added from this page). Agricolae (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with merge, the isotope within itself is not notable, while the category it is a part of most certainly is. Would like to keep some of the content on the current page however, even if it would be redirected in the end.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What specific content would that be, that is 1) sourced, 2) relevant to the target page and 3) not already on the target page? I'm not seeing any. Agricolae (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Redirect and merge' just means 'check before blanking'. Narky Blert (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to isotopes of zinc; I'm not seeing any content that needs to be merged. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and no merge, as the content looks like a copyvio/close paraphrase of the American Elements Zinc-68 Metal Isotope page. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:08, 15 May 2019 (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.