Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear law


 * 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. I agree with the nominator but unfortunately, that's not a criteria for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear law

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I nominated this article for AFD as being so poorly written and structured as to need researching and writing from scratch. Simesa (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is undoubtedly a notable topic and it has sources. We get many of these essay style pages and the way forward is to improve them editorially and not to throw our hands up in horror and delete them. An allied page, Nuclear licensing, is also in poor condition. My preferred way forward would be to combine the two articles into a new page; Regulation of the nuclear industry but this would require the attention of someone with some expertise in the topic. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare with Nuclear energy policy. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Nuclear energy policy. Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Nuclear energy policy. Dew Kane (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, I don't think that it is a fork. Regulation of the nuclear industry is a different topic to nuclear energy policy, which covers the extent to which particular countries have decided to use/develop nuclear energy. Also, it is not covered, in any systematic way, in that page. In addition, the suggested target is already quite a big page. My suggestion would be to make a regulation article a sub-page of the policy article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep very much per Bridgeplayer. Nuclear energy regulation, as a specific matter of law rather than a general matter of policy, is squarely an encylopaedic topic. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm inclined to say merge to nuclear energy policy, but that article is already large and covers several different areas of policy. Law could easily be its own article. Needs cleanup. Clinchfield (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Encyclopedic enough subject, deserves an article. Needs cleanup, definitely, but not deletion. Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  14:40, 19 April 2010 (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.