Talk:subcritical mass

RFD discussion: August 2017–February 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

subcritical mass

Is it only me, but I see just "subcritical + mass" here? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

More like "sub" + "critical mass", since the term "critical mass" is probably much more familiar than the word "subcritical", and directly related to the topic of this entry. I believe that terms formed with prefixes and suffixes are usually includible, provided they meet the other criteria for inclusion; in this case probably the only question is whether the term is in actual use, and while it doesn't currently have any citations, it looks like it is used with a specific and regular meaning. It's not just any possible use of "subcritical" combined with any use of "mass", like the amount of an optional ingredient in a recipe, or an editorial board that gives insufficient scrutiny to submissions (you could use it to mean those things, but only humorously). So I think this one is a keeper. P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There are no SOP's! QED. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There is something to the above argument: if this is a sum, then rather sub- + (critical mass) or subcritical + critical mass where the + operator enables replacement. While “critical mass”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds multiple renowned dictionaries, “subcritical mass”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds almost nothing. Still, it seems that the reader would be better off with our having the entry. By the way, someone could nominate critical mass for deletion, arguing that the definition should be in critical entry; that would be talk:free variable case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. P Aculeius has a non-boldface "this one is a keeper" and I argue rather in favor of keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)