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. Keep and make into a table! (or whatever!) SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope lists[edit]

Isotope lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Should be converted into a template. An independent article is unnecessary Professorjohnas (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Conversion to a template is a good idea, deleting the list is probably not; see WP:CLN.הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Convert to Template per both editors above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Note that there are a number of related articles also nominated; I've listed them below. In that context, talking about deleting several articles and a wealth of information? No thanks. I might be open to a template, but converting six articles to a template is a much bigger task than doing just the one. I think a more open-ended discussion would produce a better result, as opposed to the Delete/Keep dichotomy you find at AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, it seems that Isotope lists is transcluded into the detailed lists. I've noincluded the AFD, since the nominator did not say anything about the sub articles - but I think the point stands that they should be included in whatever discussion we're having. We're talking about Isotope lists, 0-24, Isotope lists, 25-48, Isotope lists, 49-72, Isotope lists, 73-96, and Isotope lists, 97+. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How does all this fit in with this previous discussion: Articles for deletion/List of isotopes? This article was also mentioned there, from a cursory glance. (The result was keep—now redirected to "table of nuclides".) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the consensus there was keep regarding this article as well, though I am a bit confused by the similarly-named articles and subsequent moves and redirects. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite lede, which needs to explain all the jargon terms used in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2012 (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.