Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear overload

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. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear overload

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

This a new theory of the author's, i.e. original research. It was PRODded, but the author has objected to deletion on the talk page, so I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New editor, first contribution, I'll try not to be harsh. But as the nominator points out, a search for the term doesn't indicate that it's used in the sense that the editor suggests. The concept of all the world's nuclear weapons going off at the same time because of some Y2K-like computer glitch is probably mentioned in science fiction, but I wouldn't know where. You have to have sources to back up an article, and this one seems to be the editor's own idea. Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research. Any article on the topic of arms control/limitation, nuclear weapons policy/proliferation etc. that does not cite Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter for at least one of its sources should, in my opinion, be viewed with suspicion. L0b0t (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism and just plain dumb. Hairhorn (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete rubbish. Nuclear weapons do not explode because of a "computer overload", and the author's heavy use of weasel words like "theorists say" is a pretty clear signal that they're making this up. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MADEUP NEOlogism. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2009 (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.