Talk:NUR Reactor

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NUR Reactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928035035/http://www.invap.net/nuclear/nur/intro-e.html to http://www.invap.net/nuclear/nur/intro-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion of AfD
This rather took me by surprise.

Anyone know what it's about? I get a million and a quarter ghits for NUR reactor -Wikipedia so there should be no trouble finding sources to satisfy the letter of the GNG if needed, but to me pure commonsense would indicate that this is a notable topic and a useful stub. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Copy-edit of discussion, along with my points, to this article. I feel it is necessary to include here rather than bothering with cross referencing the talk pages of this article and my user page. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Reminder to maybe propose an AfD for NUR Reactor, created by User:Andrewa, which may be hard to get by... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, ... maybe discuss at Talk:NUR Reactor? Looks like a reasonable stub to me. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to tag you the first time (I did the second. Does linking somebody's user page really call them over?) I was considering the thought of holding an AfD on the NUR Reactor article, so I left a reminder on my talk page to go back to run through the AfD criteria to see if it truly holds up to standard. The reason that I didn't put one out on the talk page there is because I hadn't really looked into the article in depth.
 * At first glance, I felt that the article failed to reach the notability criteria to be an article at WP:SIGCOV, but I hadn't done much research on the topic to see if there was anything that could be supplemented. As of now, all that exists in terms of sources is the NUR Reactor website. That is where I assumed a biased point of view would originate, but as I stated, I hadn't looked into it.
 * Then again, I am aware that you do write very well kept articles, and that you have a very good reputation in this department as an administrator, which is why I was hesitant to make any further action on the matter, leaving it as a note on my talk page rather than a discussion on the article's talk page. However, I didn't want to dismiss the article completely, and assumed that it may just be a smudge that needs cleaning. While the topic may be reasonable to be kept as a stub, I don't believe the article is notable based on the two sentences and website cited at the article itself. I was thinking that one more independent source to help provide verifiability may be what is needed, but that is just my take on the matter. Thank you for listening (and sorry for calling you over)! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After post: notice how I set "may be hard to get by". I do understand that you do make great articles, but WP:SIGCOV was my greatest issue with this article. Also, the 3:2 ratio of blue links to red links kind of rubbed me the wrong way after a first glance, given that the first two working wikilinks are rather general in nature. But no matter, it is a discussion worth having, so I'll move it over to the talk page. Keep in mind that I have no intention on pushing this farther if you have more research in the field than I. WP:BOLD may apply, but this isn't my "argument" to win, if it can be called that. I am open to your opinion, even one more link will be enough to satisfy. Thank you again! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)"

Further action
An explanation has been published here and now above. Probably no further action required here... other than improving the article of course!

But as also pointed out in the reply above, Articles on RA-6 and Centre de Dévéloppement des Techniques Nucléaires (both redlinks in the current stub) would also be good IMO. 15000 ghits (most look relevant)... and [https://www.google.com/search?ei=BgviXMr9OonnvgSC_q3YAg&q=%22Centre+de+D%C3%A9v%C3%A9loppement+des+Techniques+Nucl%C3%A9aires%22+-Wikipedia&oq=%22Centre+de+D%C3%A9v%C3%A9loppement+des+Techniques+Nucl%C3%A9aires%22+-wikipedia 22000 ghits] (all look relevant) respectively.

We seem to have a great many editors willing to write about nuclear accidents and nuclear power phaseout and similar topics. The positive side of the nuclear industry gets relatively little attention. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I suppose we would not need to add too much content to the article, it seems fine as a stub. Still, some extra resources besides the official website will always help (they are direly needed in this instance). About the two red links, I have some links to paste in that may or may not be useful, given that I only did a surface level search, nothing using Google Scholar at the moment. Note that a simple search for the term "RA-6" does not yield the desired results.


 * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/RA-6-research-reactor_fig2_50283682
 * https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/algeria/nur.htm
 * https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsalgerian-research-reactor-restarts-after-upgrades-7008446
 * https://www.hindawi.com/journals/stni/2011/490391/
 * http://www-naweb.iaea.org/NAPC/Physics/meetings/CN-188-WEB-Presentations/Session%20C/C04%20Blaumann%20Argentina.pdf

Any of these (if proven to be reliable, obviously) could yield to be more than beneficial for this article as well. Glad we were able to make some progress Andrewa! I'd be happy to help here if you need my assistance! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't see how it could be thought deletable as is... the topic is notable, the source reliable (as we use the word).
 * We are a collaboration. Some create stubs, others build on them. I can't remember why I particularly created this one, most likely I Wikilinked to the name from somewhere else and found I'd created a redlink. That's how most of the articles I start come to be created (and many other pages as well, especially project namespace redirects). I will then have looked to see whether the topic was covered by another article or section of an article;; If it had been I would have created a redirect to the existing content, rather than a stub. Having exhausted those possibilities I looked for RSS to justify creating the stub.
 * So feel free to build on this one if you like. I may someday, but I feel that even the stub improves Wikipedia a little if only by saving others the need to do the work described above, so it should be kept. Also of course if it were to be deleted, this talk page and all of your work would go too! Andrewa (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)