Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Nuclear Materials Management


 * 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Institute of Nuclear Materials Management

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant advertising Mion (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but clean up. The article is a mess, but the organization is legitimate and notable as a technical and professional organization that has existed for 50 years and is respected in its field. I did a little bit of cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with Orlady. The article is a mess, but will benefit from Cleanup and improve Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other two editors. I think this article can be saved.  The organization exists and much of the data here is factual.  I think that it would be much more useful to create a to-do list than deleted in its entirety.  Specifically, I think the intro section could be worded a bit more neutrally.  As currently written, it assumes that the organization actually accomplishes the goals in its mission statement and gives the impression of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwheaton11 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Orlady above. I did a bit of cleanup too. MuffledThud (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It's a mess, but it isn't advertisement. An article full of potential, just not expanded enough. It's notable (I don't really care about notability), and it doesn't meet any criteria for AfD. --Mark Chung (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2009 (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.