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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paranuclear[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Paranuclear" doesn't seem to be a term that is actually used. All references I've found refer back to this wikipedia page except for this one single article referring to Japan as a "paranuclear state". There just isn't enough material here to justify an article. It could potentially be moved to Nuclear capable state or some such which does seem to have at least some use. It also feels a lot like original research. Most of the references that the article has are either dead or barely relevant and I haven't been able to find anything more on this subject. Vectoor (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept is certainly important. Clicking the Google books link above shows that the word "paranuclear" in used in cell biology, but not in discussions of nuclear weapons, except this WP article. The importance of the topic is something to consider, but it doesn't seem like secondary sources have treated it as a distinct topic. Maybe a section in Nuclear proliferation on nations that could have nuclear weapons but don't would be justified.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article has the section "Breakout capability" which is kind of the same thing, but seems to be more narrowly defined. In general most of the material in this article is already in the other. Info on how nuclear bombs are made is, I am sure, covered in other articles.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a complete neologism in this context and that shows that this is OR. Andrew D. (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I've been making this argument for some time. Glad to see it's finally happening. The more common term is "threshold nuclear state," but there is no agreed definition. NPguy (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with an account can nominate an article for deletion. Remember to be bold.Vectoor (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.