Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of nuclides

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 no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of nuclides

Delete: Information already duplicated elsewhere, notably in isotope pages EGGS 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Duplicated or not, it's useful to have in one central place. Physics references often have tables like this. Several major websites as well - T-2 Nuclear Information Service at LANL Nuclear Data Center of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI). Georgewilliamherbert 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasons at Talk:Table of nuclides.

  Redirect to synonym chart of nuclides. Other editors cannot build upon unsourced data, adding references would amount to a complete rewrite from scratch. Also, the usefulness as a big list seems questionable since there is already a split request. Adding more of decay data would easily result in a growth beyond several Megabytes. Femto 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Curious, why would adding references amount to a complete rewrite from scratch? I could add T2 and JAERI to the bottom in a minute if I weren't otherwise occupied... Georgewilliamherbert 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't just dab on some links there without knowing they were the source of the data. Going back to verify against a specific reference, one just as well could create the page anew regardless of the existing content. Femto 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not useful in present form. It is an awkward cross between Table of chemical elements (highly useful) and Isotopes of hydrogen-type pages (also highly useful).--ragesoss 20:49, 3 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.