Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watson and Crick (2nd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. While there is some discussion on whether this should be kept, redirected or reworded, all commenters have unanimously agreed on the idea that the material should remain in some form so there's no deletion to discuss. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Watson and Crick

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

This should be a redirect, if anything. The article has existed since 2004 and has not become anything more than a stub. It should be redirected to Watson, Crick, or what they discovered. I don't think this article has a hope of having any content that's not more suited to any of those three articles. Firestorm (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Base pair (which currently makes no mention of the duo). The article could be expanded with details of the partnership, but that would be redundant to the individual biographies. bd2412  T 05:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least it should be reverted to a redirect to Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid or something (such as suggested above), which would involve a talk page discussion rather than an AfD. This was brought up at its previous VfD (back when there was such a thing) years ago. At the time there was no appropriate article to redirect it to, now that there is a redirect suits me, though should probably be discussed further. Whatever the result, it should not be deleted, as it is a viable search term that should yield some sort of useful result. -R. fiend (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's basically an atypical disambiguation page (and maybe should be explicitly labeled as such), since "Watson and Crick" can refer to several related things, none of which are entirely appropriate as just a redirect.  From early 2008 to today, this was being redirect to Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, but people who search for "Watson and Crick" may not be looking for that article.  They may be looking for Watson-Crick base pairing (aka, base pair), or the biographies of Watson and of Crick (maybe they don't know the first names), or an account of their work together (which consists of more than just the article on their famous paper, especially since they published other work together).  I could even envision a full-fledged article, since their work together has been analyzed so much specifically as collaboration, rather than in the context of either one or the other, or the consequences of their work.  But even as it is, it serves its purpose better than any particular redirect would.--ragesoss (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but at stub-ish level and keep most info on the separate Watson and Crick pages. I see this as a disambiguation page with more info, but I think it's important because rarely is one referenced without the other, and I couldn't see redirecting this to either name.   Flying  Toaster  05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form. This is a likely search term, and the current article is a pretty good navigational aid. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom. I'd be in favour of turning it into a sort of atypical disambig page listing things that people might be looking for, includng the articles on those two individuals and any work that they were responsible for.
 * Convert to Disambiguation page Need I say more? &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the phrase is the one in general use for their work together, making it a likely search term. I don't know whether this would mean improving the page to describe the whole collaboration (?duplicated somewhere else) or making it more obviously a DAB to the biographies. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This pairing is drilled into students' heads in secondary schools. It is highly likely they'd type that into the search box. I agree with FlyingToaster and Zagaelejo. Killiondude (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The form of the page can be discussed, but I agree with the others that deletion is not an option. It's basically a disambiguation for a reasonable search term (this is indeed drilled into students who follow related courses. It wouldn't be too weird to assume they don't know their first names or the exact title of the pages about their work. Both are extremely lengthy and have punctuation that makes finding the relevant articles harder. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - we're trying to write a useful reference work here ... Wily D 14:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a no-brainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: The article should be kept in some form, as a very common search term. Anything but deletion would be appropriate. Possibly should be converted into an 'atypical disambiguation' page, as the nominator suggested above.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Suitable pairing. Reasonable search term. Author paid combinations are used here when significant enough. Obviously not every possible joint authorship, but this is about the best knonw one imaginable. DGG (talk) 05:17, 16 January 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.