Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Information and Resource Service


 * 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 per consensus (non-admin closure). RMHED (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable organization. I can't find any independent references about the organization; only sources mention the organization in passing. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - It seems like it's notable enough to not be deleted. There are secondary sources, and they appear to quote NIRS reports or NIRS opinions, which implies that they are a notable organization. The article could use some work, but I don't think it should be deleted. Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google News has a lot of hits, many of which could be useful as references for the article. See http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Nuclear+Information+and+Resource+Service%22 --Eastmain (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I got the impression that this site was merely a publisher of press releases, which don't constitute reliable sources. I see the sources listed below in which staff members were quoted, but I was looking for actual articles about the organization, of which I could find none. Dchall1 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. NIRS gets quite a bit of media coverage, and has often been referred to in New York Times articles (see, for example, here and here) and NIRS has quite a few publications of its own (list). NIRS is also listed as an information resource by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (here). Johnfos (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. NIRS has been quoted in every major U.S. newspaper (and many foreign ones), has appeared on CBS news, Al Jazeera news, CNN, C-Span, BBC, and many local TV and radio outlets. i agree the wording needs to be changed to eliminate weasel words. Paxuscalta (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep BUT READ MY COMMENT. The nomination is certainly understandable.  Just recently an article on an anti-nuclear organization that I made got deleted.  If it's built with internal material (which this article does reek of) then it should be deleted.  The subject matter here, however, is big enough that secondary sources can be produced.  Practically, the one I just added should suffice.  Still, more work with sources can improve this article a lot. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (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.