Moderated nuclear explosion

Moderated nuclear explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Possibly hoax, or WP:OR as discussed on Talk. 0 google hits, and using suspicious terms. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Bad faith nomination. Part of a pattern of stalking and disruptive editing now discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. -- Petri Krohn 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. Your talk page happens to be in my watchlist, for whatever reasons (possibly because I had option "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" on for some time). I just happened to notice the conversation and followed the article talk page. The anonymous user who added speedy deletion template was obviously not skilled enought to start AFD procedude, so I decided to help him/her out. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 0 Google results for the term "Moderated nuclear explosion" (well, actually, now there are 2 -- both come back to Wikipedia). Ewlyahoocom 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. ffm 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it may be factual, how would anyone know to look up this apparently novel term? --Mud4t 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unused neologism that has had some serious concerns raised about its validity in its talk that have not been addressed. I suggest people take a look in the sources, the second one does not even use the word moderated anywhere, the first has "moderated neutron spectrum" in abstract witch is certainly not it... Looks like Petri has overextended himself and tried to write about something he does not really understand.--Alexia Death the Grey 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though probably "Rename". Stalking. Disruptive behaviour. WP:POINT. User:Suva suddenly finds out Petri has another side, changes his signature so that people will not immediately notice he is the same editor and starts an AFD against one of the opponents and beloved targets of the usual bunch of meatpuppets (surprise, surprise, one of them is here already). There are ways of helping an anonymous contributor, of course, but this way - no way, Jose. I am not an expert, but I did find a number of times the term "moderated nuclear fission", which also sounds new to me, so perhaps this is a terminological problem. --Pan Gerwazy 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I checked with my friend who teaches nuclear physics in university and he says the factuality of this article seems to be incorrect as well. Chernobyl_disaster is unrelated to the topic. And although the concept has some basis, the information is seriously misinterpreted in this article. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This just isn't an accepted term by anyone except the writer of the article and it shouldn't become one as it's entirely misleading. A nuclear reaction, as in a power station, is moderated by graphite or heavy water. A meltdown is caused by a LACK of such moderation and a meltdown isn't an explosion of any sort. There is no way a power station can explode like an atomic bomb. This is just wrong. Nick mallory 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: as a WP:NN Neologism; WP:V and WP:OR violations. Reguardless of any junk going on between users, this article fails all three. The article is talking on the term "moderated nuclear explosion" and referring to an explosion or detonation. All references to "moderated nuclear fission" are defined as controlled fission in nuclear power plants so these are two seperate terms. I have access to the book mentioned in article and have reviewed the pdf used as a source. Neither are about this term as required To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Heck they don't even USE the term.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism (as it looks like this article is doing) are inappropriate. Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources (There are none cited in this article). If the article is not verifiable (and this one is not) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. (which this one does not have). --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 13:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Reguardless of any of the above stuff going on, I personally would have nominated this article for deletion today if it was not already. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per good arguments and excellent Google searches outlined above. Digwuren 14:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and rename. I think the term is coined in English as a "controlled nuclear explosion". It hits 83 times in Google, including Science magazine etc. --Yury Petrachenko 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment From what I see, half of the Google hits use "controlled nuclear explosion" for a planned nuclear explosion, i.e. just standard nuclear explosion, the other half are fringe teenager claims without any understanding of how nuclear reactors work. Anyway, the term has nothing to do with this article. Colchicum 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is your Science magazine citation: "as he watched the first controlled nuclear explosion at Alamogordo". Any doubts that it refers to Trinity test? Colchicum 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original suggestion for this page was to merge into the Nuclear explosion article -- until I did the Google search and figured out it wasn't a real term. Ewlyahoocom 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controlled nuclear explosion googling gave results totally unrelated to the concept of the article. Also feel free to rename the article if you can find a source which discusses the concept. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, this article seems to be WP:HOAX. Martintg 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - no idea about the topic, but I found 0 references to the term "moderated nuclear explosion" in the Web of Science, Compendex, and Inspec databases, all of which index the nuclear science literature. So it seems clear that the term, at least, is a neologism... perhaps confused with something else? -- phoebe/(talk) 07:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think that anyone is surprised by the latest chapter in the Estonia Korps! vs. Petri Krohn saga. What is indeed surprising is that the witchhunt entered a new stage, when the Korps! member nominate for deletion Petri's articles which have nothing to do with Estonia. Since no administrator has been willing to investigate the incident, I assume that WP:STALK may be thrown out of window. As for the article itself, it took me a minute to spot 450 entries on Google and 135 entries on Google Books. The phenomenon is definitely notable, and I would certainly like Wikipedia to provide some sort of definition. I don't see why the scrambles associated with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren should prevent me from finding the article in Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]