Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nucleonica

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleonica

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps be redirected to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart. But unless someone else makes the case for that, as it stands, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart, where it is mentioned. In the journals, I see only primary sources, of which the most highly cited is is an article on the Nuclide Chart. There are independent mentions in two books, [1] and [2], regarding the Nuclide Chart and their decay product calculator. The book mentions are enough verifiability to support a redirect to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart, their best-known product and where the company is mentioned in context. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (edit conflict Mark viking above and I don't have time to re-jig): Some concern WP:BEFORE was not carried out on this and I was serious mulling if this was not a Frivolous or vexatious worthy of a WP:SCLOSE. Yes the article was lacking in citations and an an orphan seemingly through lack of some simply WP:COMPETENCY and I am desirous of letting ion particles flow till the hair stands on end ... but fundamentally we have a reasonable subject especially as J Bloggs can probably access it if they like. I'd respectfully oppose and suggestion of a merge to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart (Acks to Headbomb for pointing out the linkage) as Nucleonica and the Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart are fundamentally different animals and the articles developed to different levels of maturity. I am convinced better strategy is to let the Nucleonica article develop on its own to wherever it gets and then consider a merge ... and Nucleonica may then be the prime article into which Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart needs to be merged. Otherwise Nucleonica would have to develop within Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart giving respect to WP:UNDUE ... its an additional constraint and may particularly affect any images that may be added. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have worked the article a bit. Obviously Magill et al. (2009) does not count towards WP:RS. Excelsior (2015) & Forschungszentrum Jülich (2017) show satisifaction of the training requirement per subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. at Wikipedia:NSOFT which are sufficient alone for survival. Also per WP:THREE for notability we have, with others available should one fall:

Cern (2017). "Nucleonica | CERN Scientific Information Service". library.cern. Archived from the original on 13 June 2019. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
EU Science Hub (9 August 2016) [2013]. "New JRC spin-off company to work on the Nucleonica portal". EU Science Hub - European Commission. Archived from the original on 13 July 2019. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
Masterson, Robert (2017). Nuclear engineering fundamentals : a practical perspective. OCLC 1048280746. 6.24 Online Decay Engine.

Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re, the merge above, they are entirely different types of entities and bear no relation to each other whatsoever. There is sufficient reference to support an article. scope_creep^Talk 01:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEXIST could have been found with a WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 21:39, 3 December 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.