Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enriched limit

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enriched limit

Non-existent technical term DV8 2XL 03:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Google search turns up mirrors only DV8 2XL 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Royboycrashfan 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The word have been used 3 times in published scholarly literature [[1]] but I could not find it in the articles to check the contexted. --Elfwood 10:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two links seem to have to do with "enriched limits" relating to Abelian categories that my own search turned up, if I'm interpreting them correctly. Disclaimer: I'm not a mathematician. --Christopher Thomas 07:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as low on context and unverifiable. Stifle 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Term is O.R. and statement about uranium demonstrably erroneous. --Ste. Anne 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I asked the author to provide a reference if one exists. The definition of it makes no logical sense to me personally, but that might not mean anything (I am not a physicist); "maximum number of ions in an element" strikes me as jumble of terms in a way which makes no sense. But again, I am happy to be shown to be totally wrong in this. --Fastfission 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be nonsense. pstudier 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All I can find online are references to this Wikipedia article, and references to a completely unrelated meaning in mathematics. Searching on "enrichment limit" gives multiple links to more conventional discussions of uranium enrichment, and a link to limits to concentrations of substances in a water supply before Bad Things happen, which is unrelated to this article. As far as being used as a term in chemistry, I can see how the article contents might be a mangled version of some chemical concept, but it looks like gibberish as-is from what I can see. --Christopher Thomas 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have never heard of this term, after reading the page I suspect that it might be a case of patent nonsense.Cadmium
• Delete Can find no evidence for the term. There is an enrichment limit, but that's usually a legal licensed limit, not a fundemental physical limit Salsb 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both sentences are erroneous. When you enrich something, you increase the ratio of one isotope in relation to another, and I'm pretty sure most nuclear weopons are enriched in excess of 90% in U-235. Lcolson 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Concept not physically valid. For example, AVLIS could reach extremely high enrichments. Simesa 12:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.