Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear optimism


 * 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. Discussion regarding merging and redirection should now take place at the article's talk page. Non-admin closure.   S warm  ( Talk ) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear optimism

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I'm proposing deletion for Nuclear optimism as there is a long standing concern that the topic is WP:Synthesis. I disagreed with this opinion but I have found no other supporters. Others have suggested changing the focus of the article but all of the proposals have changed the focus so significantly as to make it a different article. For the sake of not leaving broken articles around WP I am proposing that this simply be removed (unfortunate in my opinion, but so be it). --Mcorazao (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think it would be a shame to lose all of this content. Surely at least some of it could be merged into other articles, such as Atomic age. I would also encourage the nominator to further draw out User:Beagel on this issue as he is very knowledgeable about energy topics. Johnfos (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge useful information to other articles (Atomic age, Nuclear proliferation, etc), then delete per nominator. It is clear WP:POVFORK identifying atomic and hydrogen weapons with nuclear reactors.Beagel (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't merge and then delete. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, merge to relevant articles, and redirect to Atomic age. Alternatively, delete. Beagel (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect there is a better title for this article, and that title might lead to more sourcing. Otherwise merge to Atomic Age. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment.The problem is not the title. The real problem is that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are mixed together in this article assuming that if you support the nuclear energy, you should support nuclear weapons, and vice versa. This is WP:OR and WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there was a popular feeling of greatness about the miracle of atom-cracking in the 1950s, and that feeling did not distinguish based on the rate of energy release. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what it is worth I resent the implication that has been stated repeatedly that the article is about the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and that people must be fervent supporters of both. This is not what the article is about. That is a straw man argument. As I had said before, if editors want the article deleted I won't oppose but I do insist that it be done for honest reasons. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I honestly believe this connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy is not intentional and the purpose of this article is something different. However, by reading this article, one got a strong impression that there should be clear linkage between them, and that supporters of nuclear energy also support nuclear weapons. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: I appreciate the response. The article says very little about this connection. It actually originally said even less. I think if you are reading that as the crux of the article (and you're not the only one) that probably has more to do with personal biases. I addressed that connection a little more explictly to address the concerns but to no avail (bearing in mind the article is still at a start level). One can argue legitimately that optimism regarding weapons and optimism regarding power are different. But 1) you cannot be optimistic about nuclear power without being at least a little optimistic about nuclear weapons since obviously the first can enable the second, and 2) there are experts that have been genuinely optimistic about both together. So though there is a distinction they are not entirely separate. Nevertheless, the article is not primarily about that connection but just about all of the optimistic beliefs about the use of Einstein's formula as a whole. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The topic is clearly notable as one can find additional sources such as this quite easily. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion.  If there is an editorial impasse then please use WP:RFC not AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not allowed to views the pages you linked to. What did they say? Abductive  (reasoning) 06:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The page in the book discusses how the Soviet Union launched a proganda campaign preaching the potential of "nuclear power", thereby promoting "nuclear optimism" in order to counterbalance fears of nuclear weapons. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete all material that is not about Proliferation optimism, per ™  below. --Bejnar (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect redirect to Atomic age. Any encyclopedic content is covered there.
 * Keep. The topic of the positive attitude toward nuclear power and weapons during the 1950s/1960s, and how that changed, is notable and covered in several sources.  Atomic age appears to be more of a broad overview of the time since nuclear weapons and power were developed, rather than an examination of the attitude.  This article certainly could be improved, but I see no reason why it should be deleted. –Grondemar 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Because this article is a confabulation of some pie-in-the-sky comments, an overview of nuclear development, crystal gazing on future nuclear development with a little synthesis thrown in for good measure. The concept of optimism in the development of science might be worth an article, if there are enough sources.  Here the concept is worth a paragraph or two in the overview article Atomic age. Some of it is also covered in Atoms for Peace. --Bejnar (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think it belongs in the Atomic Age article, as it's an independednt school of thought—sometimes called Proliferation optimism. There seems to be quite a bit written in the scholarly community about this, though I can't say that the article doesn't have some synthesis or OR (haven't looked that closely yet).— DMCer ™  22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response I wouldn't object if the article were about "Proliferation optimism". It is not. Do please read it in detail. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Atomic Age or alternatively split into two articles. The information on general, cultural nuclear optimism from the 1950's and '60's can be covered in that article.  Proliferation optimism, which is what I thought the article was about seeing the title, is a separate subject and should not be lumped together like this.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2010 (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.