Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor


 * 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. Consensus is for article retention. Of note is that topics can be notable per having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources despite their developmental status. North America1000 11:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

this is a concept that was developed 11 years ago. it never got further. Ysangkok (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Even though it was a failed project, there are many sources that describe it. The number of sources, no doubt partly because of the involvement of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is sufficient to support notability. I have added another external link and an inline citation. The article requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - there's not much here when you consider it's obsolete (apparently). However, it would possibly make sense to have a more generic article about portable nuclear power. There's more info about it here - Army Nuclear Power Program and here . —Мандичка YO 😜 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Whether or not the design was ever realized doesn't matter - only if it's notable or not. In this case it seems to be, from the provided mainstream coverage and Scholar hits. Kolbasz (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This device is notable because its design and planning has significant coverage in reliable sources, even if never actually built. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2015 (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.