Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen-15


 * 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. No consensus to delete. A merge proposal has already been made and the article tagged. Therefore, that discussion can take place on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen-15

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A slightly more useful isotope of oxygen; I would be inclined to redirect and merge with the isotopes of oxygen page, noting the use of this one as such. Tyrenon (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to merge it into the isotopes of oxygen page, I'm not sure that starting a deletion discussion is useful. Just go ahead and merge it. Just make sure that wherever you merge it to gets all the relevant information added. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Isotopes of oxygen 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per nom.Synchronism (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into the isotopes article. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge does not require AfD - just go ahead and propose it or be bold. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep O-15 is used in PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and is therefore notable enough. I would prefer to merge it into isotopes of oxygen but that is a separate decision that can and should be decided outside of this process, in my opinion.  As noted above WP:AFD is only to be used for articles that satisfy the deletion criteria such as notability or having ONLY bad (such as slander or copyright violation, etc.. ) information. 164.58.59.20 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's used and it's mentioned in hundreds of books, therefore it's notable. --Itub (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable by itself, or if needed, Merge with Isotopes of oxygen. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Isotopes of oxygen is my !vote. I think these can be usefully covered in the one article. A.C. Norman (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Saying it is a "more useful isotope of oxygen" is a reason to have an article about it, not a reason to delete such an article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 8 June 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.