Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radsafe


 * 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. WP:DICDEF applies. There is patently insufficient content to support an article and such slight content that there is, is unsourced. The only 'keep' !vote is from the creator who does not adduce any policy based arguments. The question for consideration is whether the page can be redirected to Glossary of physics. The problem is that there is no accepted definition for this term. One of the common uses is for the British company and some sources refer to the Australian company. In learned circles we have different useages, here and here. I am driven to the conclusion that producing a definition that is not misleading is not a runner leaving 'delete' as the only viable option. Just Chilling (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Radsafe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NEOLOGISM / WP:DICDEF. Not an article. Originally prodded, prod was removed with a rude comment. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete May be relevant to a dictionary, not important/notable for Wikipedia. Abrasapuentes (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Glossary of physics, which would seem to be the most relevant available glossary. bd2412  T 00:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing here to keep. Tony OU812 (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Almost null content. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Redirect to a glossary as suggested by . That's what they're there for. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm the one who "wrote" this article, consisting of one sentence. I received a notice from User:GigglesnortHotel saying that I could "prevent the proposed deletion by removing the proposed deletion/dated notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page." Which is exactly what I did. My edit comment was, ""Radsafe" is not a neologism. I came across it in an article and it's in quite a few others. I want to help others to find out what it means without spending 5-10 minutes as I had to. Please find something more useful to do than deleting new articles!" That's what he calls a rude comment?? I don't see why people spend their time trying to undo little things that others do in order to help people! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Not a dictionary Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC).
 * you haven't really advanced an argument for keeping the article. I don't think anybody wants to undo your work, but there are all sorts of reasons that articles on unencyclopaedic subjects are undesirable. What we're trying to do here is reach a consensus on whether this subject fits that description. We're all here to improve the encyclopaedia. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how those who just want to delete a helpful article are trying to improve the encyclopedia. A redirect would be all right, but just deleting it would make the encyclopedia less useful. As I said, there are several articles that use this term, so there ought to be an entry telling people what it is. I don't see why people spend so much time on such a minor thing. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Eric, you've been here since 2006 and you've done quite a bit of editing, most of it good, especially to science-related topics... you should know why this contribution is not acceptable as an article. I'm seeing a number of commercial uses of Radsafe, both product names and company names, some of those companies may also be notable, so "Radsafe" could potentially mean quite a few things. If anything, Radsafe should be removed from the articles that use it and replaced with the correct and full name (if they refer to the Radiological Safety Section). GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (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.