Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isotope map (0-55)


 * 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   delete. Nja 247 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Isotope map (0-55)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Redirect or Delete. Duplicate of Table of nuclides. Attinio (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicative per nom. Redirection does not seem useful in this case, since none of the various formats in which the information is already presented here—see Table of nuclides—covers exactly this group of elements (atomic numbers 1–55). Deor (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as an incomplete duplicate per nom. Materialscientist (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unreferenced, incomplete, apparently duplicated elsewhere. the table is to my eye impossible to read, and no lead or text obviously doesnt help. i would say unsalvageable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This format is a usability nightmare. Most of the links are to generic articles ("isotopes of X"), and there's no way to identify the ones that aren't (Carbon-14, for instance). The text is unreadably small and can't be magnified by ordinary browser controls. The image is ridiculously large (1600x1400, larger than most users' screens) and consists mostly of white space. Need I continue? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (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.