Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear summer

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 07:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear summer
Non-existent term; basically nonsense. On 2005-06-12 01:26:36 Fawcett5 stopped it being a speedy with Doesn't fit the definition of patent nonense... she may be right; but its close. The term doesn't really exist (google seems to hit only web design). The scientific content is nonsense (loss of ozone is a net negative radiative forcing and would lead to cooling not warming). William M. Connolley 22:57:16, 2005-07-20 (UTC)


 *  delete Keep - William M. Connolley 23:01:07, 2005-07-20 (UTC). Switching vote on the basis of the link RJH found, which now provides different (and this time valid) science. Am I allowed to withdraw this VFD now? William M. Connolley 19:27:38, 2005-07-21 (UTC).
 * keep - Without taking a position on the ultimate validity of the theory, it does look like it is a recognized term in academic circles. It took two seconds to find reference to the term in at least one scholarly work, by an emeritus professor of military history , and it is simply not true that Google turns up only web design hits, I find many (e.g. ,, , ,). Also, the theory described on the page says only that solar radiations would sterilize the earth's surface, and nothing whatsoever about actual warming. Fawcett5 03:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I admit the link you found exists. The problem is that the science is pretty dubious The high temperatures of the nuclear fireballs could destroy the ozone gas of the middle stratosphere. doesn't seem likely, and none of the refs you've found support it. ( just mentions the phrase - no more; says nuclear winter was really nuclear summer and no more - what does this mean? There seems to be no substance behind it at all. William M. Connolley 12:04:50, 2005-07-21 (UTC).
 * Delete per nominator . --Bambaiah 08:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I found only two references to nuclear summer:, . This suggests that it is a small subject, but could be an altternative or a later stage of nuclear winter scenarios. In the light of this material, I come to roughly the same conclusion as the remaining people, except that I think the scenario does not yet have sufficient backing evidence or paper trail to stand as an independent encyclopedia entry. Therefore I suggest merge and redirect to nuclear winter. Another reason for my vote is that most of the references, such as those given by Fawcett5, actually show that there is somewhat of a controversy over nuclear winter/summer. So the nuclear winter article needs to have a para describing nuclear summer. But if that is done, then there is not much more left to say in the article on nuclear summer. Of course, if there is sufficient new information, then I would revise my stand (once more). --Bambaiah 12:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep but expand. I've heard of this as an opposite viewpoint to nuclear winter. If the ultimate decision is to delete, then merge this as a subsection of the nuclear winter article. To delete because the science is considered dubious is POV - as long as the article remains NPOV and addresses both supporters and detractors, then it should be OK. 23skidoo 14:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; I added some more, but it could stand to be further enhanced. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the link you've found, which seems to me to provide valid (or at least plausible) science, I now think it should be kept. William M. Connolley 19:27:38, 2005-07-21 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.