Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiation monitoring in power plants


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Radiation monitoring in power plants
Arbitration/Requests/Case has been filed in this case

—Preceding unsigned comment added by John williams 7 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a short and yet meandering piece of uncited original research. It is an opinion piece and an essay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR, etc. Additionally, why does this warrant a separate article? One could argue that the topic is interesting, possibly notable, but it'd have a nice, cozy home at Nuclear power. I am not, however, arguing for merging with that article -- this is purely original research, and if the topic should be covered elsewhere it should be done so in an encyclopedic fashion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep* Mark as stub, see if it's worked on. I'm puzzled why an article that's only just been created and which the edits say is just a start is being nominated for deletion so quickly.Amentet (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article and am honestly ambivalent about it being deleted. At the very least it needs to be moved to Radiation monitoring in nuclear power plants. With expert input about the actual technology used to monitor radiation would likely make for a decent article.  AniMate   05:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article title to Radiation monitoring in nuclear power plants, in case the article is kept. Nsk92 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: comments above from AniMate and Amentet: my opinion on this is that there's no reason, that I can determine, for this to be a wholly separate topic. It doesn't seem so widely notable in a sense that is independent from Nuclear power as to justify it's own article. As such, I do not share the puzzlement over why it was nominated so quickly -- it's not a particularly notable topic. One gets that sense quite plainly even from reading the rewritten version, which features only one sentence that even directly applies to the topic ("Sensors for monitoring radiation levels are kept both inside and outsider the containment building and are connected to control systems that can limit or stop possible radiation leakage."). The remainder of the article is content already well-covered (better-covered, even) in other articles -- and it is still, in its current state, pure WP:OR. We don't have articles about, say, "Temperature monitoring in internal combustion engines" or "Heat shields on U.S. Space Shuttles" do we? What reason is there to include this article in Wikipedia? I'll say this -- I'm not so strongly opposed to this that I think it's an open-and-shut case. The topic is real, and there is writing on the subject. Just seems to me that the coverage is minimal and technical enough that I don't understand why it requires an entire article devoted to it when an individual section in Nuclear power plant would not only suffice, it would be in a location such that the average reader might actually find/read it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you, and have zero problems with this being deleted. I think there's an article here, but this isn't it. Normally I'd say to redirect it, but the title is wrong, it's completely unreferenced, and even after my rewrite, it's poorly written. So delete is fine with me.  AniMate   21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the current version and the version by user:John williams 7. I am sure that this was created as a WP:COATRACK for someone active in the field. A proper article would be technically complex and maybe worthwhile, but this is not it. What it is now is at least neutral but it's just a statement of the obvious.  Guy (Help!) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly userfy. In its current form the article is a pure WP:OR essay and is thus unsuitable for mainspace. There may be a basis for developing an article on this topic. However, in view of the fairly technical nature of the subject, an article like that needs to be first developed in userspace and brought to a semi-reasonable shape there (in terms of structure, content and references) before being posted in mainspace. In the meantime, the topic can be covered in existing articles, like Nuclear safety. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 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.