Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boiling water reactor safety systems


 * 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 was   speedy keep. Discussion has revealed that it is not entirely OR. Any necessary shortening or tagging need not be discussed here. No delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Boiling water reactor safety systems

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Significant original research -- John (Daytona2 &middot; &#32; Talk &middot; &#32; Contribs) 06:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are problems of verifiabilty, as the banner already warns readers. But this is not a novel topic which the author is launching on the world, and people have spent careers working in the field. If there are things that are wrong, or incomplete, others can improve it and provide more sources that are in the public domain. If Wikipedia is to improve its coverage, especially on technical topics, contributions cannot simply be a rehash of something somebody found through Google. AJHingston (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep "Significant original research" isn't a deletion criteria, unless it can be shown that it is impossible to write a verifiable article using reliable sources - something which is hardly the case here. The article can, and should be improved though. henrik  • talk  15:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep:Clearly notable and with enough RS material for its own article. Any suspected OR should just be tagged. It needs more inline citations. Rod57 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable. It is clear that the article was written by a technical expert who did not feel the need to cite references.  However,that is not a criterion for deletion.  The content of this article can be referenced, it will just take time and effort. Lwnf360 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With expanded interest in the topic arising from incidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi, the article has become vital. It needs more (referenced!) details about reactor safety systems, along with their successes and failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.129.130 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete this. More citations would be nice, yes. But a deletion of such a solidly constructed article? No. -- D a n c r a g g s 20:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Definitely needs some cleanup, but a notable topic and a good fork of Nuclear safety systems. Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Why was this even flagged? And especially right now? The safety systems & operation of a BWR are not discussed elsewhere, deserve their own entry and are very relevant right now. It could use more sources, but it doesn't have any glaring flaws beyond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.25.252 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs a POV marker, not a deletion vote. There's no original research here, it's just short on citations and presents with an unnecessarily nonchalant, pro-manufacturer tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.6.168 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid topic. In this case the deletion reason given in the nomination could probably be better solved with a rewrite. VQuakr (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2011 (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.