Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean safe nuclear energy


 * 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 of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW and because we really do not need political diatribes from problem users in the main space Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean safe nuclear energy
Delete. Four words in an SOTU is not something to title an article on. Will duplicate material covered elsewhere. Article created by User:Benjamin Gatti to "Document Bush's propaganda", so little chance of NPOV treatment. --Robert Merkel 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * These specific four words can be traced to the NEI - a Lobbying organization, and have been previously ruled to be false and misleading advertising. The President choose these four words to sell the public on an adjudicated lie. Deserves to be documented individually. Benjamin Gatti 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, NPOV issues, WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This article would fit right in on Err America Radio Ruby 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The claims made above are misleading. The use of the phrase dates back at least as far as 1988, when it was used by George H. W. Bush during the Presidental debates, according to this PBS transcript. No evidence has been adduced, thus far, for the NEI's coinage of the phrase at so early a date. The decision made by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in 1998 (the "adjuticating" body referred to above) speaks generally to the juxtaposition of "clean" and "nuclear power"; this specific phrase does not appear in any of the coverage of the decision (I cannot find a copy of the decision itself). Having researched all this since the article (which I originally proposed for deletion with Template:Prod) was moved to AfD, I stand by my original assesment: the article is NPOV and of little value, and none of its contents merit an article separate from nuclear power. Choess 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant "POV", above. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherent POV. Blnguyen 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see any potential for an NPOV article out of this. pstudier 05:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV article. --Ter e nce Ong 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete hopelessly POV. Georgewilliamherbert 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Of course. —wwoods 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. An obvious propaganda vehicle by User:Benjamin Gatti, and arguably a violation of his week-old Arbcom case. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NPOV violation. Political comment rather than encyclopaedic.  (aeropagitica)   07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV propaganda with no redeeming content --DV8 2XL 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, User:Benjamin Gatti still thinks Wikipedia is the place where yelling his own POV. --Cyclopia 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calton, and see this also. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and maybe inform some sysops about Gatti's breaking of his ArbCom case terms. Batmanand 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as both POV and redundant (nuclear power covers health risks and politics already).
 * Delete concur with hopelessly POV. Inaccuracy doesn't help.  Simesa 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with something like Bushism or whatever. Failing that, Delete. Bobby1011 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV by nature with no hope of a NPOV version... I did learn something though: Carter was a Nuclear Engineer; and here I thought he just grew peanuts.--Isotope23 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The page has to go ! It is a dire assault upon my senses with its POV (I think that the text is so bad that the only way to deal with such a page is to get rid of it and start again, much of it is either POV which has no place here or is already present somewhere else.). The idea of how clean nuclear power is (or is not) should be subject to a rational and sensible debate not this soapbox treatment.Cadmium 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G5, A6 (article serves to attack its subject, which is "clean, safe nuclear energy". Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NPOV, Avi 18:28, 15 February 2006 (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.