Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderated nuclear explosion (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moderated_nuclear_explosion_(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 redirect to Nuclear explosion. There's a general consensus here that a separate article here probably isn't justified. However, there does appear to be a valid discussion to be made about some of the physics involved here, so the history is best left intact to allow discussion on the talk page and potential merging of sourceable information. ~ mazca ^talk 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:Yakushima attempted to nominate this page for deletion, and I'm helping fix the AfD nomination. No opinion on my part. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Met. This article as previously closed as "delete" in 2007, apparently for WP:NOR and WP:NEO, though the closing admin wasn't specific about reasons. I don't see what's changed in the relevant literature since 2007 that would justify a Keep today. Yakushima (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Either redirect to some appropriate article or just delete. There are literally no Google Books hits for this term, no Google News hits, and no Google Scholar hits. All of the very few Google Web hits appear to be derived from Wikipedia itself. Hence, this term appears to be a neologism not in actual use. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator See the author's reason for restoring this deleted article, here [1]. See also his user talk page comment (which I will assume he wrote):

I may sometimes break all rules and take very bold actions, normally only reserved for administrators. This is done under the following assumptions.

1. I believe that the action to be taken receives unanimous support.
2. I will undo any action if I am explicitly asked to do so.
3. General sounds of displeasure do not count as a request to undo.

-- Petri Krohn (talk)

The author is an experienced editor, who I think would be aware that a couple of media mentions do not qualify a topic under WP:GNG. These mentions were of a "nuclear explosion" (not sure whether of "moderated nuclear explosion") by one scientist, Christopher Busby, with known anti-nuclear leanings. These mentions were moreover made on Russia Today, which is not exactly a reliable source. (Which is, in fact, often accused of promoting conspiracy theories). Is it safe to say that restoring this article from user space after it had been deleted years ago is one of the author's WP:IAR actions? If so, I don't think it would qualify as one that he can undo when "explicitly asked to do so", because he isn't an admin. And I'm not sure how he could possibly believe that this action of his would receive "unanimous support", although that's perhaps a matter of individual worldview. Nevertheless, under AGF, we must take it as given that the author is not simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but really believes that notability criteria have been met. Two Russia Today broadcasts with interviews of Christopher Busby are his declared basis for thinking so. Any discussion following should therefore focus solely on those two broadcasts, unless other corroborating sources emerge. Yakushima (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from (re-)creator Here is a short comment on the nomination. I will respond in more detail later.

  There has been wide speculation for almost two months that at least one of the explosions that destroyed the reactor buildings at Fukushima I was a “nuclear explosion”. (See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22nuclear+explosion%22+fukushima&tbm=nws)

  For the notability of the topic, it is totally irrelevant if this theory is true or not.

  Much of this speculation originates from nuclear experts. When these people say “nuclear explosion” they are not referring to what is described in the Wikipedia article nuclear weapons design. There has also been a change in the way the event at Chernobyl are described. The term nuclear explosion is now regularly used in this context.

  I admit that the title is a neologism. However, Wikipedia has to give names to its articles, sometimes these titles take forms that have not been used in literature. Alternate names for the article include Nuclear explosion (moderated), Highly energetic moderated criticality event

  As to IOR, yes I have ignored the rules. This is however not an administrative action, so whatever the nominator has copied from my talk page does not apply.

  -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. – With the the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident the event has come to be called the “Chernobyl nuclear explosion”. A Google search for the term (with quotes) now gives “about 228,000 results” (out of a total of 18 million). Most of these have appeared on-line in the last few months. In 2007, when this article was first created and deleted, it was extremely difficult to find any source – general or scientific – with the words “Chernobyl” and “nuclear explosion” in the same context. Searching for “Chernobyl nuclear explosion” in pre-2008 pages only gives “about 142 results” (out of a total of 5,120,000).

  -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand. Has anybody written any book or article about the type of event described in this article? If yes, what did they call the event? If not, how can this article be sourced? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short answer: Most likely multiple books and articles have been written. Does Wikipedia have the security clearance to access this material? No! In fact it is possible that most of what should in theory be in this article is born secret. We may be discussing the most horrendous terrorist weapon imaginable.
      For the physics, we have to rely on what is in the public domain. There are bits and pieces lying here and there. None of them are called "Low-Cost Nukes for Dummies." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment' In other words, WP:V and WP:RS are impossible in this case? Yakushima (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further comment from nominator There is an apparently false claim above: "With the the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident the event has come to be called the “Chernobyl nuclear explosion”. A Google search for the term (with quotes) now gives “about 228,000 results"". I get more hits for "Chernobyl disaster", "Chernobyl nuclear disaster", "Chernobyl accident" and "Chernobyl nuclear accident." In the Google ranking for what Petri claims is now the accepted term, the first site to characterize the accident as simply an "explosion" doesn't say that it was a nuclear one; and the site's tag line suggests that the article was a student-written contribution anyway. The second one to seem RS-ish is http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/0-what-happened-chernobyl.htm#0, which cites the UN report: "[The] power surge caused the nuclear fuel to overheat and led to a series of steam explosions that severely damaged the reactor building and completely destroyed the unit 4 reactor." An incorrect term ought not to be uncritically enshrined on Wikipedia as the proper term for what happened at Chernobyl, especially when there are apparently four others that are significantly more prevalent. Yakushima (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTABILITY Merge to nuclear explosion (see article (re-)creator's "Time out" comment below.) – Even as a conspiracy theory, the idea that nuclear reactors or even nuclear waste can blow up big time in a nuclear chain reaction resembling the one in nuclear weapons is notable in itself.

  As to the physics, if you have sources to indicate that you need 10 kilograms of weapons grade highly enriched uranium or plutonium in metallic form to achieve anything resembling a nuclear explosion, please add them to the article.

  And yes, Russia Today may not be a reliable source on nuclear physics but it is a reliable source on the notability of conspiracy theories.

  -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator - a few points:

• WP:FRINGE issues - The very editor who originated the article in 2007 and who recently revived it in mainspace is now suddenly characterizing it as being about a notable "conspiracy theory." Really? Then why does it begin with this sentence:

A moderated nuclear explosion[1] results from a nuclear chain reaction mediated by moderated neutrons.

There might be a case for a section of nuclear explosion, called something like "Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear power plants". In fact, I would be willing to assist with the editing required. At least according to Chernobyl disaster, something like a prompt criticality event might have been caused one of the explosions (with hydrogen and steam also hypothesized as the cause.) However, to qualify as an article under some such name, while at the same citing somewhat problematic sources like Christopher Busby talking to Russia Today without actually using any term more specific than "nuclear explosion", it remains to be seen whether there has been enough work on the subject per se to satisfy WP:GNG. (I don't think it could satisfy the notability guidelines under which mainstream nuclear physics theories generally fall.)

• WP:NEO issues - In any case, I think it's clear that the author has confessed openly above to WP:NEO, at least.
• WP:IAR rationale: Really? Above, the author explicitly claims safe harbor under WP:IAR. However, I have yet to see this editor's reasons for believing that breaking the rules in this case makes Wikipedia better.

Finally, about the Google Web search hits on "Chernobyl nuclear explosion", the pages I've looked at so far all fall well short of discussing, with any technical or scientific authority, the physical phenomenon claimed as a fact in the article. They seem to be using "Chernobyl nuclear explosion" as shorthand for "the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl, during which there was an explosion that worsened the situation dramatically." Where that's the meaning, however, it's implicitly wrong on the facts: there was more than one explosion at Chernobyl. Yakushima (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • As you have started discussing physics I must ask you, what is your expertise in nuclear physics? Are you sure you understand any of the terminology used here? You seem to have no understanding of what happened at Chernobyl. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S – You are misquoting me. I did not say this was a conspiracy theory. I say that even if it was nothing more than a conspiracy the mainstream media attention this is getting would make it notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for (slightly) distorting your (deeply) confusing position. But you should make up your mind what your defense of your admitted WP:IAR action is, and how the article qualifies under WP:GNG, especially since you openly admit the title violates WP:NEO. What is this article actually about? If it's about some controversy over whether Chernobyl and/or Fukushima have seen nuclear explosions in some technical sense of the word "explosion" (see deflagration and detonation distinctions), then call it that, and don't present your definition as a fact. Yakushima (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for my understanding of relevant physics, I note you cite a video by one person who claims that hydrogen and oxygen can't detonate, only deflagrate. As I now document in the article, this source (Gundersen) is clearly wrong on that point: see Google Scholar on "hydrogen-oxygen" and "deflagration-to-detonation".

• Speedy delete (WP:CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.") and trout the creator for not following normal procedures (WP:DRV) and recreating his neologistic WP:OR against consensus. As determined in the original AfD, which I closed, there are no reliable sources discussing a moderated nuclear explosion. There are sources discussing nuclear events, which the article's author interprets as a "moderated nuclear explosion", but that is obviously original research. That he or she can now add a few new sources (not all what one would call RS for such a topic though) to his speculation doesn't change anything, as they present the exact same problem. Fram (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I have just userfied a recent version of the article that I have just finished editing; this version shows that the author's statement, "It has been speculated that some of the explosions that destroyed the Fukushima I nuclear reactors were moderated nuclear explosions", apparently backed by numerous citations, was in fact mostly backed by citations of sources that

• suffered from questionable technical accuracy, or
• didn't actually assert anything about nuclear explosions of any kind, or
• probably would not support the idea that either Fukushima or Chernobyl saw what this article's author calls a "moderated nuclear explosion".

There was one Russian paper proposing (claiming to have proven, actually) that prompt recriticality explained a particular explosion at Chernobyl, as opposed to the mainstream theory that they were all chemical explosions. That, as far as I can tell, is about it, for WP:RS. I think it's worth userfying the article as a resource for debunking claims elsewhere on Wikipedia, or perhaps for a Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear power plants article. Yakushima (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yakushima's fork of the article to User:Yakushima/Moderated nuclear explosion violates our WP:Copyrights rules. The copy paste edit does not attribute the original authors. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Yakushima, Please delete (use WP:CSD#U1) the fork, and wait for this debate to be closed. If the page is deleted, you may request userfication, which involves a page move, not a copy-paste. Otherwise, you have to go to some effort to satisfymandatory attribution, or the page must be deleted as a copyright violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with the details of proper attribution in this case -- and had assumed that a Speedy Delete recommendation from the original admin who first deleted this article meant that it was, at that point, about to be deleted. And I was acting in anger, not long after Petri had reverted some constructive edits of mine with an accusation of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point." In any case, whatever the violation of the letter of the law, it was no violation of the spirit: I commented here (a permanent page) about what I was doing, after having explicitly identified the (re-)creator of the article in this AfD discussion. But I see now it now: of course you need all of the contributors accessible (at least indirectly) for proper attribution, and there have been a few other contributors. Thank you for pointing this out. Yakushima (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making two claims at the same time: 1) The topic is not notable. 2) The physics is wrong. You should stick to only one at the time.

Here you are making statements about the "mainstream theory" on Chernobyl. I must ask you again, are you an expert in nuclear physics? If you are not, I am not going to start discussing physics with you. And even if you are, this may not be the place for the discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are valid criticisms, though. The physics of actual criticality incidents in moderated uncompressed solutions precludes events with more than about 10E21 or so fissions in a single pulse, and very few have reached that level. That corresponds to about 1E-6 mole, or .25 mg of material reacting, with explosive yield equivalent of about 4 kg TNT. The neutron yield is the dangerous part (and fission products).

Because of moderated reactions' inherent time scales, the only way to get high yields is to both highly compress and highly tamp the materials, to get maximum credible alpha and contain it long enough to get you credible weapons yield. That's only possible with large implosion assemblies. The Ruth and Ray shots used a Fat Man sized (54 inch) implosion assembly and very large tampers.

IMHO - The only valid parts of this article refer to the Ruth and Ray shots, and the rest is unreliably sourced speculation. I argued for a mild keep last time around (2007) on this basis, not for the article to be used as a soapbox for what is unfortunately quite literally pseudoscientific gobldeygook that a few nuts are using to try and increase hype over the (quite conventional) accidents in Fukushima. If the coverage of those fringe views is notable enough to be in the main articles on them, that's fine. This article is being unwittingly used to promote theories that are not valid.

Petri - I respect your contributions in general, but on this point, it's just wrong. The physics is wrong, and the people who are arguing it are off on the non-credible fringe, and any press coverage of it I can find is in sources I would not consider notable.

With the article being used in this manner - I argue now for Delete. I can move a footnote paragraph into the main Nuclear weapons design article on Ruth and Ray and hydride weapons. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator Petri, could you tell me where some requirement to "stick to only one [criticism] at the time" is enshrined in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? As for "making statements about the "mainstream theory" on Chernobyl" with no basis in personal expertise, please note that I supplied those statements in the article itself, CITING AND QUOTING AN EXPERT SOURCE THAT YOU YOURSELF CITED BUT WITHOUT QUOTING. The source happens to claim proof that one of the Chernobyl explosions was nuclear in nature, but also characterizes the claims that it was only chemical as mainstream. Specifically (my bold added):

To date there is no general idea regarding the physical nature of the Chernobyl NPP accident. According to the main version, it was an explosion of chemical character, that is, the explosion of hydrogen formed in the reactor at high temperature as a result of water reaction with zirconium and other elements ....(Pakhomov, Sergey A; Yuri V. Dubasov (16 December 2009). "Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident". Pure and Applied Geophysics (Springerlink.com) 167: 575.)

I see no Wikipedia policy requirement that I be an expert to edit this article or to comment on it in AfD; as long as I responsibly use WP:V and WP:RS, and avoid WP:NOR, I don't see a problem with what I've contributed to the article so far (most of which you reverted onsight.) By the way, Google Scholar shows the above article as "cited by 1"; of the mere 5 hits I get at Google Scholar on its title, one is the Russian original, another is a translation of it, the remaining three are wikipedia mirrors [2][3][4]. The paper was in a geophysics journal, not a nuclear physics or nuclear engineering journal. And the one paper Google reports as citing it? Its abstract says nothing either way about Pakhomov, et al. It would be interesting to see what the citing paper says, but I'm not going to pay money to find out. What I see here: we don't have the kind of extensive treatment of the topic meriting a judgment of WP:N in scientific terms, so that leaves WP:GNG of what's arguably WP:FRINGE theory. Yakushima (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No there is absolutely no requirement to be an expert or to know anything about the topic one is writing about. However, if I am confident that you understand the concepts, I will phrase my counterarguments differently. This discussion may quickly turning into a discussion about nuclear physics.

Anyway, thanks for adding the material about 100 ton TNT equivalent underground explosions from the new source. I was planing to add it my self but did not yet have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petri Krohn (talk • contribs)

Petri - I was forwarded copies of the two articles you referenced (Chernobyl and the autocatalytic / hollow moderated spheres w/boron layers papers), plus I reviwed the video from Gunderson at Fairewinds. As I stated on your talk page yesterday, there are significant factual problems here now, after review.

Neither of those two papers referred to a moderated nuclear explosion by that terminology. The Chernobyl radiation signature paper suggested that a transient high energy prompt nuclear event was responsible for some fraction of the total energy release, based on fission product spectra, but didn't hypothesize about the nature of that transient prompt event. It basically was "The Xenon ratios here suggest that the reaction happened all at once for some fraction of the reactor volume, and wasn't just release of built up fission products". It's WP:SYNTH to assume that the paper is claiming it was a moderated nuclear explosion event - it simply doesn't say that is or could have been what happened. If it did happen then there's a limited set of things that it could have been, but the paper doesn't speculate into that set at all.

The autocatalytic spherical systems one never uses the word explosion, though it demonstrates some edge case energy releases that would likely be moderately explosive in nature. That's in alignment with other prior hydride critical assembly tests and Ruth and Ray - but again, they never use the word "explosion".

Gunderson has a bunch of factual issues. One, he asserts that hydrogen explosions are only deflagrations and not detonations. Hydrogen is well known in the explosives community for gas-phase detonations in air or other oxidizer mixtures. He's simply wrong on that point. On the reaction point, he asserts that a prompt nuclear explosion happened in the fuel pond due to collapse of the rods in the hydrogen explosion. The problem with that is that there is no fast fission critical mass for reactor grade LEU - even an infinite assembly is not critical. It couldn't be moderated fission either, as A) the water was gone already, B) if water was present, collapsing the assemblies reduces the amount of water that neutrons would travel through, and the assembly is already at the optimum spacing to create maximum criticality in water because the reactor function requires that - and any collapse or explosive separation takes it away from optimal, reducing criticality not increasing it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I checked the paper used as a reference for the term "Moderated nuclear explosion", but it failed verification[5]. --Martin (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You'll find a lot of that. In violation of WP:PRESERVE, the creator of this article reverted all of my edits showing what certain sources cited actually said, characterizing my changes as "speculation about the motives of "experts"" and as "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Oh? Pointing out that Christopher Busby "is controversial for his theories that low-dose radiation from Chernobyl may have caused 1,400,000 deaths" is hardly speculation about his motives. It's a fact, from which the obvious inference can be drawn by a reader who is otherwise unfamiliar with Christopher Busby and his main claims to fame. Pointing out that one author cited claimed that nuclear fuel spent fuel pools could explode with a force greater than any other nuclear explosion to date is not casting aspersions on the writers' motivation -- it's making sure the reader knows that this writer says flatly incorrect things about nuclear explosions. I could go on. But read for yourself. Yakushima (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are serious problems with at least some of the references, and the concerns from the original AfD still seem to apply. Most of the actual content seems to be synthesis or duplication of material already better-covered at nuclear meltdown, nuclear reactor, and nuclear weapon design. The objections about it being recreated out-of-process also apply: get consensus from several other editors that the problems have been addressed before doing a straight move-restore. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur with Petri Krohn's comment as follows:

Here is a short comment on the nomination. I will respond in more detail later.

• There has been wide speculation for almost two months that at least one of the explosions that destroyed the reactor buildings at Fukushima I was a “nuclear explosion”. (See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22nuclear+explosion%22+fukushima&tbm=nws)
• For the notability of the topic, it is totally irrelevant if this theory is true or not.

I have been following this topic, and it is a useful reference on these theories whether proven or not. I have not been aware that these theories have been speculated on for over two months before seeing the Gunderson video. "Prompt criticality" and gunderson results in hundreds of citations, even though it has not hit the mainstream press. The fact that the "conspiracy" oriented press as Russia Today is still notable given the sizeable following and marketshare that it does have. If the national enquirer covers a story, it is certainly notable. Even if original story is not verifiable, the news coverage is Redhanker (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator - if the topic actually were (as I proposed myself above) Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear reactors, I'd probably be at Weak Keep myself. However, when I provided background on the bona fides of those making the claims, or on the article (re-)creator's claims about sources (starting here [6]), the article (re-)creator (and admitted neologism-coiner, and WP:IAR claimant who has yet to explain why) reverted all of my edits with the comment:

You seem to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point! Please save your irony to the deletion discussion. – Speculation about the motives of "experts" is outside the topic of this article.

My edits did not, in fact, involve any overt speculation about motives. I simply made it clear that the sources were all problematic for the thesis that "moderated nuclear explosion" is a term of art, or that some such concept had been credibly applied to explain explosions at Chernobyl and Fukushima. In other words, it seems that you found the article a useful resource for learning about the status of such claims in large part because the person who'd nominated it for deletion (me) had made it a more useful resource. The (re-)creator of the article apparently begs to differ on issues of utility: it's almost as if he doesn't want you to see so clearly what the problems are with these claims and/or sources. And is willing to attack as "disruptive" certain attempts to clarify the nature of the sources. I have restored most of the reverted edits, characterizing the reversions as a violation of WP:PRESERVE. The (re-)creator of this article has since (so far) let them stand -- apparently having figured out that I'm not so easily intimidated. Yakushima (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nuclear explosion and protect. Allow for merging of content from the history, but this title is too specific and has served as a little watched backwater. Any valid content in this article needs to be assessed by editors at a more active page, such as Nuclear explosion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Time out – Looking back at the history I now see why this article was created in 2007, with its disambiguated "neologistic" name. At the time there was no article on nuclear explosion. The part of Wikipedia namespace was used by the article that now resides in Effects of nuclear explosions. At that time the article covering the physics of explosions was nuclear weapon design – another article equally unsuited for this content.

  I now see no problem in merging the sourced content to nuclear explosion. It is also a far better place to discuss the physics, than this deletion discussion. Unfortunately it may take several days before I have time to do any merging.

  As for the content created by User:Yakushima it could go to Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear reactors. I have no position this. Besides, if these claims turn out to have any merit, then real world events have overtaken any discussion here.

  -- Petri Krohn (talk)

In view of the fact that Petri Krohn claims justification from WP:IAR for reviving this article without discussion, but hasn't responded to repeated requests to explain why the action was for the good of Wikipedia, I don't think he should be allowed to edit nuclear explosion or the proposed claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear reactors -- or even moderated nuclear explosion while it lasts -- until he does provide credible explanation. "Time out"? You mean, actually stopping the AfD clock, Petri, because you don't have the precious time this week that you need to do things your way, your WP:IAR-at-any-time-for-reasons-I-don't-have-to-explain-to-anybody way? How does one earn that remarkable privilege? Yakushima (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only hits "moderated nuclear explosion" has on Google are from Wikipedia. -- Kolbasz (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (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.