Talk:ice nine fusion
Thanks for cleaning up the page. Will try to find proper references to meet criteria for inclusion.
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Is this salvagable? Also, I note that the "definition" consistently uses a different written form that the entry name. I am thus wondering what the attested written form actually is. --EncycloPetey 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there is one; Google pulls up no Books, Scholar, Groups, or Web hits for any of the three plausible spellings ("ice 9 fusion", "ice nine fusion", "ice ix fusion"), except for four Wikipedia-descended Web hits. I recommend speedy deletion. —RuakhTALK 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- strangelet, yes. ice nine, maybe. ice nine fusion, no. Someone has a bee in his bonnet about this at WP, too. DCDuring TALK 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of any CFI-valid cites and discussion at w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ice-nine_fusion. -- Visviva 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- (Corrected link.) Wikipedia has different standards from us. I would cite as ice-nine. DAVilla 13:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well sure, but not in this sense, I assume. -- Visviva 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- To elaborate, it doesn't have to be sound physics to be a concept, and it doesn't have to be the most appropriate accepted term to be a headword. If it's citable even in science fiction, then it flies, correctly defined of course. DAVilla 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)