Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Weapons Timeline

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. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Weapons Timeline

This is an unsourced textdump, which could very likely be copyvio. This is the only article edit of the user who uploaded it. Therefore, it's unlikely to be research but simply a copy-paste job. Regardless, it's in an incorrect namespace (should be: Nuclear weapons timeline), and it essentially duplicates the purpose of History of nuclear weapons. I propose delete and redirect to History of nuclear weapons. —thames 23:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We have this at History_of_nuclear_weapons. Monkeyman^(talk) 00:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim62sch 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I certainly believe that if the author took the time to read the History article, he definitely wouldn't have written it. --Jay(Reply) 01:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But, unless it gets verified as copyvio, I'm going to archive it at the History page.--ragesoss 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: No evidence of a copyvio: some users prefer to work in a word processor before creating articles. An incorrect title is also not a reason for deletion: simple move the page to the correct title. We also frequently have separate articles for [[History of X]] and [[Timeline of X]]. That having been said, this aritcle does not appear to be an actual timeline. However, I would vote keep on an actual timeline of the history of nuclear weapons as a subarticle of History of nuclear weapons. This article does appear to contain a lot of the appropriate dates. Perhaps its just needs cleanup. No vote at this time, though. Just pointing out that the reasons given for deletion aren't that compelling. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete without prejudice; doesn't seem to be evidence of copyvio, user's first substantial contribution, and there may be something in there that could in fact be profitably merged into History of nuclear weapons. Smerdis of Tlön 04:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  "Userfy" to an anon? Lupo 09:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  History suggests the author is User:Wagam. Smerdis of Tlön 12:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Nuclear proliferation. --Off! 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete without prejudice; per Ihcoyc. pschemp | talk 07:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup, rename and wikify. This reads as an essay rather than an encyclopædic article. It really needs to be cleaned up before it can be easily read - textdumpers should preview their efforts in the Sandbox before choosing to save pages. I don't think that it can be merged with History of nuclear weapons without a severe edit. Renaming to Nuclear weapons timeline would also be consistent with WP article entry style.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup/wikify per aeropagitica Nobody has bothered leaving a message for the contributor asking about sourcing? It looks like a class paper or something, and could easily be massaged into a good article if confirmed as having been written by the contributor. Phr 08:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I added paragraph breaks (they were already in the pasted text but no blank lines, so got squashed) which helps readability, and left the contributor a message. Also added "vote". Phr 10:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lupo 09:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Delete per nom" shows up here several times and would seem to mean "I agree with the nom that this looks like a copyvio". That's awfully non-WP:AGF since the nom never asked the contributor about where the text came from. I left a note just a few hours ago, no answer yet. Phr 13:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right. Perhaps I was a bit hasty. I didn't think the author was likely to respond, as they only made one real edit ever, and that was several months ago. I figured the account was abandoned, but I should have checked. BTW, I moved your welcome and inquiry to the user's talk page, where they'll get a proper talk page notice.—thames 14:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks Phr 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• merge relevant bits with Nuclear proliferation, delete article. It also looks too much like copyvio. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is "looks like" with zero concrete evidence of copyvio, grounds to delete an article? What happened to WP:AGF? While the article is interesting, it does not look like a professionally written article to me and so I don't know what the source of copyvio would be. My best guess is the contributor is a student and the article is a class paper written by the student. Phr 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mindbender 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe userfy if the creator wants it as a scratch pad for expanding other articles, since some effort has apparently gone into researching this. Just zis Guy you know? 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. If someone wants to go through and add relevant, sourced info to History of Nuclear Weapons, great, but merging would be a lot of work, and I don't know that it would add a lot to History of Nuclear Weapons.--Gjc8 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm getting less and less patient with contributors that can't be bothered to click on the link under every edit box, where it says content must be verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This article is simply not notable in WP's coverage of nuclear weapons. Georgewilliamherbert 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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.