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 keep. BigDom 13:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot particle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unreferenced and unreliable physics article. Has had reference request tag for more than 3 years. Information at plutonium suggests this topic is being presented with an erroneous conclusion. meco (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems, at best, a neologism for some form of radiation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither a neologism nor a form of radiation. Please read the article again. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I added references to two peer-reviewed papers on the topic of the danger of hot particles. That should satisfy the sourcing requirement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, expand and improve. Google Books and Scholar searches for "hot particle"+plutonium show plenty of evidence that this is a notable topic and not a neologism, unless you consider a term introduced 37 years ago (Tamplin & Cochran 1974) to still be a neologism. Qwfp (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Qwfp - sources exist. A lot of sources say somethign about a "hot particle hypothesis" or a "hot particle problem", so it would be nice if the article had some mention of this. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is much improved, with numerous sources. The content as well has been expanded and clarified, and hopefully misunderstandings of the text such as made by the delete voter above should be less frequent. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was hoping that this nomination would engender what three years of maintenance tags couldn't, and it did. __meco (talk) 11:03, 19 March 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.