Talk:isomer bomb

I was in the middle of creating this entry for isomer bombs (syn: hafnium bombs) when it was deleted out from under me, with a snide remark about "crap definitions" and protologisms. Clearly the administration does not know the topic. If the administrator does not know the topic, they should kindly let me finish building the entry first. This concept has been around for over a decade, so clearly not what the administrator claimed to be a "protologism" (2003)(2006)(2008)(2009)(2013)

Exactly how much checking do admins do before deleting things? Is it just a whim and poof? -- 70.51.44.60 08:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry this happened. Not being an administrator, I can't check the page history to see what was done to it or by whom without recreating it.  But there do seem to be multiple uses of the phrase in various sources over several years; I noticed Wired and The Guardian near the top of the results list.  However, none of the other hits from the first two pages are from similar sources, so perhaps it's the deleter's contention that the term is just a minor variation on a more widespread term, which has yet to gain general acceptance.  I would suggest that your best course of action is to rebuild the entry, quoting three or four examples from the most respectable sources you can find, and if necessary adding more under the "citations" tab.  Since you say it was deleted as you were working on it, perhaps you shouldn't save it until your main citations are given; then there would at least be strong evidence that it's an attested and widespread term, and any discussion of deleting it as a protologism would have to take place before such action.  At least, that's my understanding.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored the page and tagged it with so that discussion can take place. (To be clear, I tagged it with  purely as an administrative action; I currently have no opinion on whether the entry should be deleted or kept.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was about to restore it, but Mr. Granger beat me to the punch. I would definitely recommend adding citations (see WT:Citations) showing that the term has been used by three independent publications over the space of more than a year. I'd also recommend getting rid of the usage note, which is too encyclopedic for Wiktionary. A usage note would have to be about how the term is used, not about properties of isomer bombs themselves (which falls into Wikipedia's purview, not ours). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Kept Article has been cleaned up, nobody has voted delete, and there are no new comments in a month. The entry may still face an RfV. Pur ple back pack 89  19:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up, and added entries for a couple of red links. It's probably OK now but seems to have too many synonyms etc. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the problem with it when you deleted it originally? -- 70.51.44.60 06:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)