Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foe (unit of energy)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW and clear outcome. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Foe (unit of energy)

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

One man's neologism. Google turns up a few hits, most of which cite Wikipedia as their authority. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It is not a neologism by any stretch of the word, and is widely used in astrophysics at least as early as 1993.  Please, please, please, obey due diligence and perform searches before you throw something at AfD like this; you do this quite often.  It needs these sources to be included and improvement, not deletion.  Celarnor Talk to me  19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Celarnor, I've added a ref to Scientific use of the term. -- JulesN   Talk  20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a little confusing because the term is the same as a common word, but a search for "foe energy supernova" shows it's legit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I'm still trying to figure out where the nominator came up with the idea that this is "one man's" neologism -- there was nothing in the article at the time to link it to anyone, let alone any one person. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how he came up with it, either. In any case, to help prevent anything like this from happening again, I left a message at the nominators usertalk with some information about how to do journal searches.  Celarnor Talk to me  20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a genuine term. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (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.