Deletion of Moderated nuclear explosion

Comment: as a  Neologism;  and  violations.  Reguardless of any junk going on between users, this article fails all three.  The article is talking on the term "moderated nuclear explosion" and referring to an explosion or detonation.  All references to "moderated nuclear fission" are defined as controlled fission in nuclear power plants so these are two seperate terms.  I have access to the book mentioned in article and have reviewed the pdf used as a source.  Neither are about this term #Reliable_sources_for_neologisms|as required ''To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.''  Heck they don't even USE the term
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NEO)

Comment: this article seems to be 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)

Comment: The subject of the article does not appear to be a total hoax, but it seems to be saying that reactors can explode like fission weapons, a claim which is not well enough supported in the sources cited to gain the prominent forum such an article would provide for anti-nuclear power activists. Extreme scientific claims need multiple substantial coverage in independent and |reliable sources. Claims such as this have been discredited in arguments about nuclear power  for many decades. What happened at Chernobyl surely cannot be closely compared or conflated with what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This article leaves out SL-1 which was a small military reactor which "exploded" when the control rods were ejected or were removed too far and too fast. It sems to conflate such energy releases or meltdowns with atomic bomb explosions. Several cites in the article note that the fuel assembly would be dispersed very quickly in a moderated nuclear reaction. It reeks of |original research , synthesis  and . Wikipedia is not a suitable forum for espousing new and controversial claims in physics, nor to promote a neologism which failed to catch on in refereed scientific journals. Here I see editors claiming they are experts on physics or nuclear science, and conducting the fundamental debate on the scientific merits of the theory which should be going on among reviewers for a scientific journal. This is not a forum for debating the basic science. We should defer to quality refereed scientific journals
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:POV)