Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear controversy


 * 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 delete  as WP:OR list.  Sandstein  09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear controversy

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

This article is basically a POV fork of Nuclear power. This article lists the name of some nuclear plants labeling these as "controversial". The definition of "controversy" is vague.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As there's no independent definition of what a 'nuclear controversy' is this is basically someone's opinion and falls foul of a whole bunch of guidelines. The examples in the article are a grab bag with no common theme and I don't see how it could be improved without being re-written on basically a different topic so there's no point in keeping the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Complete original research and POV.   RGTraynor  14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Author means well, but has gone wrong in a number of ways. First is trying to do too much, lumping together nuclear plants that were the subject of "mass protests", plants where there was an accident, and plants where, if there wasn't a mass protest, there at least were some bumper stickers.  Second is the problem of "original research", one that almost every Wikipedian learns about shortly after contributing a first article.  Third is that this is the "indiscriminate list"; in this case, a list of plants that we know are "nuclear" but with no context to explain why they are nuclear and controversial.  Finally, there's the misleading title whose sole purpose is to introduce a list... and an uninforrmative list at that. Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a chunk of WP:NOT and written in a (to me) strong non-WP:NPOV.  As pointed out above, it is a fork out of the nuclear power article's debate section.   The author's comment(s) in response to the NPOV tag is a somewhat condensed re-write of the article.  To me, this simply reinforces the POV/OR nature of the article.Drieux (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research unless some well-defined inclusion criteria can be established. We already have a List of nuclear reactors as well as a Nuclear and radiation accidents page (in need of cleanup). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-neutral original research article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but explain what each "controversy" was about. The material could be placed to several other articles (mass protests against building nuclear power plants, nuclear accidents, etc.) Obviously, sources support the claim about the "controversies". Hence this is not OR.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Come on. There might be three different articles in there, but not one all jumbled together with OR. -- Relata refero (disp.) 05:18, 24 May 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.