Talk:ice nine fusion

Thanks for cleaning up the page. Will try to find proper references to meet criteria for inclusion.

ice nine fusion
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. —Ruakh TALK 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)