Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radioactive opinion


 * 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 of the debate was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Radioactive opinion
Neologism, only 1 ghit in the described context SM247 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BAD. --Bill (who is cool!) 02:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nonsense Deathawk 02:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, if can cite, and needs to be radically reworked and expanded. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am assumeing good faith, and saying keep. But i do think it badly needs to be cited, unless its a joke, then Delete.  Heltec    talk 
 * Still assuming good faith, don't you think it's a bit dictionary-like?-- A n d e h 03:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see what good faith has to do with this. Nobody's saying that someone just made the term up to make Wikipedia worse, just that it is a neologism and as such inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Captain Disdain 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Heltec was trying to back his reasons for keep, saying that he created the page in good faith. He may have been newbie, but that isn't really a reason not to delete the page.-- A n d e h 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, but Heltec didn't create the page. That was User:Pogogunner. (And again, just because a page is created in good faith, that doesn't mean it should remain. No one is assuming any malevolence or ill will here, but the article is judged on its own merits, not on whether its creator honestly thought it would be a good addition to Wikipedia.) -- Captain Disdain 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Does not seem to have any room to grow into a full Wikipedia article. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr; 
 * Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete By definition an opinion is POV and unless the author intended to write about the different opinions people have about radioactivity, this should go.-- SomeStranger ( T  |  C ) 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, unencyclopedic. --Ter e nce Ong 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-verifiable neologism, little more than a dictdef. J I P  | Talk 10:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. - Motor (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn neologism. Max S em 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn neologism &mdash;M e ts501 talk 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No citation.  Tachyon01 04:46, 6 June 2006 (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.