Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani A-bomb

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 delete --Durin 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani A-bomb

Material covered in Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction also poorly written and unsourced DV8 2XL 01:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per my own nomination --DV8 2XL 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gadzooks, this thing is a mess. Better resources on the topic already exists in Wikipedia, and these resources contain more references, more information, and fewer typographical errors. -- Kicking222 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even a possible redirect as Pakistani is incorrectly spelt. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced mess from an unreliable editor. --Fastfission 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - speculation upon speculation here. - Richardcavell 01:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: is the subject of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program not of interest to Wikipedia? It's my understanding that once an article title is deleted, it may not again be added in the future. Thoughts? Badagnani 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• The topic is covered in detail in Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction, and Nuclear Doctrine of Pakistan, also the term 'A-bomb' has been replaced by the term 'nuclear weapon' --DV8 2XL 02:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. No objection, then. Badagnani 02:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with nom -- Samir धर्म 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As relevant as the subject is, this hasn't got references. Dr Zak 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Nuke 1. Very speculatory 2. Unreferenced 3. Topic needs to be renamed. Give Peace A Chance 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This not faintly a complete article. Nor is the information verifiable. Finally, we should not be publicizing such information. Simesa 02:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What does "we should not be publicizing such information" mean? That we should protect the state secrets of Pakistan? Badagnani 03:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that this is too much of a cookbook for nuclear weapons. I know of one article that Wikipedia has deleted because it was of abominable taste, and this one has some specifics I think might be sensitive. Simesa 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I thought everybody knew how to do this stuff these days (though they might not all have the technology to do so). Badagnani 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody would be able to build a nuclear weapon based on information gleaned from Wikipedia (and all of our information in articels like nuclear weapon design is, according with WP:V, taken from public domain sources). Anybody who had the technological means to develop nuclear weapons would be purely idiotic if they tried to develop them based on information they got over the internet, anyway. --Fastfission 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually consider Wikipedia's description, or any other encyclopedia's description, a valid starting point, in the same way that I'd consider becoming familar with nuclear physics a valid prerequesite. Even if useful details are scarce, knowing what general approaches have been tried and how well they worked helps immensely when working on a new engineering project. I don't think Wikipedia's articles are a security threat, not because they aren't useful, but because their contents are already public knowledge, making attempts to restrict that information useless. --Christopher Thomas 14:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge any verifiable material into Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. There are details about a bomb test and design of the initial run of weapons that would be useful to merge if they could be backed up with citations. --Christopher Thomas 03:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that they are totally unsourced and probably spurious and speculative, judging from this editor's previous contributions. Many of his previous contributions have shown that he has very little knowledge of even the basic principles. --Fastfission 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This is why I had "verifiable" as a caveat. If anyone feels there's content that should be carried over, they can hunt down references before doing so. I don't have strong feelings either way. --Christopher Thomas 14:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Duplicated elsewhere. Tychocat 04:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant with Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. As per Christopher Thomas, any verifiable material in this article can be merged if not present in Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. jgp 05:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No references or sources cited for the article. Poorly-written copy with nothing worth merging in to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. Also, Pakistan is not spelt with a 'c'.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Defininetly notable---just already covered. No point in rehashing. Perhaps it would be good to add some of this info to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction--Alphachimp ^talk 07:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Contains more information than the Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction.--Stone 11:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Convert to Redirect to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. I'd also argue that any useful (technically-specific) content be merged, but without citations, it's just so much speculation. Atlant 11:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - speculation ---Light current 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Already covered digital_me^(t/c) 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Nick C 16:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. deeptrivia (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It seems some of the information on the design, ie, Chinese, would be useful. Maury 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Siddiqui 16:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Subject to a major rewrite, is the design a Pu or U design ? I know it would be possible to make an U device using a basic design similar to the Fat man but the article is not clear as to what the design is thought to be.Cadmium

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.