- 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 redirect to International Nuclear Event Scale#Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale. More content can be merged from history Sandstein 09:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale
- Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:DEL7: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
- The article appears to be either un-referenced original research or an essay.
- two references are provided: [ one] is an opinion piece published on "Physics Today: Points of View" (a popular and generally reliable magazine for the lay audience, not a scientific, peer-reviewed or citation-indexed journal), the [ other] is a self-published study.
- Following a Google Scholar and Scopus search, it appears that the author (David Smythe) is indeed an academic of Geophysics at the university of Glasgow, with a long research career and a few articles marginally related to the topic. However, I have failed to find any suitable reference on the subject of "Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale". Patrick A Burr ( talk) 01:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Selective merge to International Nuclear Event Scale. 1. There are several references in scientific papers using the scale but these are what we would call "passing mentions", confirming the verifiability of the scale but maybe not its notability. 2. The article is not unreferenced nor is it "original research". Perhaps you mean Smythe's paper is original research or essay-like but that is not of direct concern here. A reference to an independent review article concerning the matter of these scales would, of course, be highly preferable. 3. The second paper does seem to have been published independently. [1] (But I'm not well informed on such matters). There are several references available such as this. Since our article International Nuclear Event Scale refers to criticism and mentions NAMS I think further mention there is desirable. However, since we (I mean I) cannot be at all sure NAMS has been widely adopted it may well not warrant a full article at this stage. Thincat ( talk) 09:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Author pitching in. For the most part, I do not accept the reasons for deletion. Given that the INES scale has crucial shortcomings (e.g. no relation to actual damage outside of the nuclear facility), we really need to mention and to explain this alternative scale. This article basically supports the INES one by pointing out limitations.-- Keimzelle ( talk) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Partial merge to International Nuclear Event Scale, per Thincat. This alternative proposal seems a valid facet of the scientific discourse around the INES scale and as such merits a mention. Not prominent or widely referenced enough for its own article though. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to the International Nuclear Event Scale#Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale section I just added to that article, in the criticism section. The limited sourcing suggests that this alternative scale may be WP:TOOSOON, but if that changes, the meat of the info is there and the article can be recreated. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:54, 4 May 2018 (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.