Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Torpedoes

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 Deleted from mainspace (as shown at the now deleted page) and the name has been changed, thus this is unlikely needed to continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Torpedoes

title changed to Nuclear torpedo

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (added search FeatherPluma (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious essay. Note also that it has issues beyond that; e.g. "Since the early 1940’s when the Soviets had successfully engineered their own form of a nuclear bomb (...)" looks like a conspiracy theory of some sort (more prosaically, it's a typo). Maybe the "T-5 torpedo" has some material to merge, but I am not quite sure this is the same as this one. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article there was at nomination has significantly changed. It has been moved to Nuclear torpedo and significantly edited by FeatherPluma (congratulations to him!). While its current state is still a sorry sight and heavy trimming is in order, the case for an article about nuclear torpedos (and not "the history of nuclear torpedos") is fairly clearly a keep. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was not clear: I strongly oppose leaving a redirect from the essay-like title to the new article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This new article has a core of useful referenced content that enhances the encyclopedia. The content, by a group of new contributors in a class project, was indeed essay-style, and there were some fact errors. These have been partially addressed by edits after AfD nomination. Further style improvement and reference checking is easily possible. A carefully selected and corrected subset is very much worth keeping, with the article renamed to nuclear torpedo. The present disambiguation page, Nuclear torpedoes, was originally set up to redirect to the Mark 45 torpedo only. It later acquired 2 redlinks (to non-existing pages; redlinks generally can be useful but they are against disambiguation page policy) and 1 redirect to a hopelessly generic Soviet nuclear weapons article, that has less than 1 line about the Soviet nuclear torpedoes being addressed in this new article. Hence I recommend merging the (fairly useless) disambiguation page to this article, or deleting it, and I also recommend further cleaning up this new article to get to conventional style and referenced content. (The definitional boundaries of this weapon class from cruise missiles and submarine-launched land-attack missiles etc. will need to be explained very briefly.) [initial comment: FeatherPluma (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)] [updated, and may amend again after further review; also, agree with User:PRehse below FeatherPluma (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Comment Less likely to dismiss this completely even though the writing style is painfully essay-like. There is a whole lot of un-necessary repetition and detail and the article as a whole should take into account existing articles and the disambiguation page.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to User:FeatherPluma for taking this article into the realm of the acceptable - I wonder what thanks he gets from the original author. The article has been moved to a better title Nuclear Torpedo and I recommend the original title The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Torpedoes be Deleted as it smells of the original essay intent without providing any use as a search term.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Nuclear torpedo" is a reasonable topic for an article, but needs a lot of chopping into shape ( Digressions, poor phrasing, repetition. ) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed with P. Rehse that not only is this a keeper that includes non-redundant coverage of significant Cold War munitions topics, User:FeatherPluma did a fine job making chicken salad out of chicken, er, non-salad. Subject matter can be easily integrated with other Cold War articles without duplication and with enhancement of existing WP content. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (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.