Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Time Unit


 * 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. SNOW close, self admitted I made it up one day, no conceivable chance of keeping  DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Time Unit

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A search of legitimate physics-related material (i.e., using Google Scholar and Google Books) reveals this term is rarely if ever used, and the definition (i.e., the specific value) given does not appear to agree with any of them. The only source which seems to support this particular definition is the external link provided, which appears dubious as a reliable source; all other references I find to this particular definition appear to be mirrors of that site and/or this article. Kinu t/c 19:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Your reference to "legitimate physics-related material" seems inconsistent with the concept of Wikipedia. As I understand your proposal to eliminate my definition of the NTU. You state that it is “rarely if ever used” and that “does not appear to agree with any of them”. Does the amount of references make something useful. You say that the other sources do not agree with my definition. However you do not state that my information is correct or not correct.
 * I created the idea of the NTU back in December 2nd 2005. I published it in the


 * http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php?word=nt
 * NTU (abbreviation) : Nuclear Time Unit The amount of time required for a beam of light to travel, in a complete vacume, the distance equal to the diameter of the hydrogen atom. The value is omitted here because the diameter of the hydrogen atom and the speed of light are matters under consideration by science.
 * That ship is moving at 700,000 NTU's a second. (very slow). I am 768T NTU's old.
 * Submitted by: Dale Noble from Florida on Dec. 02, 2005 17:23
 * So thanks with your help in the destruction of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalenoble (talk • contribs)
 * I take it you admit that you created this definition then? If not, please provide at least one reliable source that supports this definition, not your submission to an open dictionary project or one of the many mirrors that have picked up on this possible blatant hoax article. -- Kinu  t/c 20:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COI. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Delete (provisional). It does not appear that this definition-related neologism is notable.  This term needs to have been reviewed by multiple, third-party (i.e not self-published), reliable sources. I am willing to change my !vote if such sources can be provided, but right now the only "source" is an open dictionary defintion posted by the creator of this article.  Note to Dalenoble: I am not disputing that one can divide these two values to produce a new value.  The issue is whether the term / name you have given to such a value meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Singularity42 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:Original research, probably made up in the playground or Speedy delete as per db-hoax. The sentence "The value is omitted here because the diameter of the hydrogen atom and the speed of light are matters under consideration by science" is a dead giveaway; the speed of light is known (299,792,458 metres per second). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2011 (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.