Deletion of Moderated nuclear explosion (2nd nomination)

Comment: In other words,  and  are impossible in this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.") and trout the creator for not following normal procedures () and recreating his neologistic  against consensus. As determined in the original AfD, which I closed, there are no reliable sources discussing a moderated nuclear explosion. There are sources discussing nuclear events, which the article's author interprets as a "moderated nuclear explosion", but that is obviously original research. That he or she can now add a few new sources (not all what one would call RS for such a topic though) to his speculation doesn't change anything, as they present the exact same problem
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV||WP:OR)

Comment: You'll find a lot of that.  In violation of , the creator of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moderated_nuclear_explosion&diff=426439214&oldid=426367466 reverted all of my edits showing what certain sources cited actually said, characterizing my changes as "speculation about the motives of "experts"" and as "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point".  Oh?  Pointing out that Christopher Busby "is controversial for his theories that low-dose radiation from Chernobyl may have caused 1,400,000 deaths" is hardly speculation about his motives.  It's a fact, from which the obvious inference can be drawn by a reader who is otherwise unfamiliar with Christopher Busby and his main claims to fame. Pointing out that one author cited claimed that nuclear fuel spent fuel pools could explode with a force greater than any other nuclear explosion to date is not casting aspersions on the writers' motivation -- it's making sure the reader knows that this writer says flatly incorrect things about nuclear explosions. I could go on.  But read for yourself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: There are serious problems with at least some of the references, and the concerns from the original AfD still seem to apply. Most of the actual content seems to be |synthesis or duplication of material already better-covered at nuclear meltdown, nuclear reactor, and nuclear weapon design. The objections about it being recreated out-of-process also apply: get consensus from several other editors that the problems have been addressed before doing a straight move-restore
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)