Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural circulation


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy kept. The nominator doesn't want the article deleted just one sentence. That matter should be discussed on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Natural circulation
Delete - The portions of this page that refere to the S8G reactor should be deleted, as the information is classified 'Confidential - Restricted Data' by the United States Navy in an effort to protect our Silent Forces Afloat. There is no quarrel with the remainder of the content, as it is a very fascinating application of the basic principles of Science. There is no nead to use the S8G reactor as a specific example, since there are OTHER specific examples already described. By removing the sentence relating to the S8G reactor, we can help protect our military AND remove any legal, moral, or ethical concerns/debates/flamewars from occuring. Eclectick 18:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: the information is factual, verifiable, includes references, and is not classified in any way (full disclosure: I am the article's originator, and obviously a mortal threat to national security) ➥the Epopt 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you only want one part of an article deleted, gain consensus on the talk page for that part to be removed.  AfD is only for cases where you want the whole article deleted, which (as you say in your nomination) you don't.  AfD isn't for solving disputes like this. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Epopt. (The argument about editing out S8G material is not for here.) Bucketsofg 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Epopt  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and ignore the scaremongering. David Newton 00:37, 26 March 2006 (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.