Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isodiapher


 * 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 merge to Nuclide. clpo13(talk) 20:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Isodiapher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I propose a redirect to nuclide. This article is little more than a dictionary definition and has little more content on the subject than nuclide, and I have not found any reliable sources (books, journal articles) that provide useful content for expansion beyond a definition. It also has been tagged for a lack of sources for over eight years. As such, this topic fails WP:GNG and does not deserve a standalone article, though examples of the use of the term (such as the article's one reference, but not the many instances of WP:CIRCULAR) warrant a redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to and Merge with nuclide. The two referenced sentences in Isodiapher would be appropriate for the Types of nuclides section, alongside the definitions of Isobar and Isotone. &#32;- Syd (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge as per Syd Midnight. --MaoGo (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2019 (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.