Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Economics of Nuclear Power


 * 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Economics of Nuclear Power

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

Contested prod; This article does not meet Wikipedia's notabilty criteria and has been tagged as such since February 2008. Reason given was "This page should be merged with Economics of new nuclear power plants", yet there seems to be no content to merge Ratarsed (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete I was about to say this should follow the inclusion criteria for books, but apparently it's just a report and not a book. For Environmental effects of nuclear power I included just a section on Storm and Smith publication, while there is an article for the notable people around it, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen.  No matter how you look at it, his publication (if you can ever say it was "published") is vastly more notable than the Greenpeace report in question here.  I think this is a useful analogy, and this report should follow the same route.  Summarize it in the Economics of Nuclear Power, and link to the notable biographies, etc. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as undue weight and a "content fork" (although there is little content here apart from a summary of the report). Inclusion of this report as a reference in the "main" article would not violate the GFDL as no text would be used that isn't derived directly from facts in the articles.  I'm sure that greenpeace has experts on the subject and that the report is thorough and competent, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Economics of new nuclear power plants, to incorporate facts such as the construction of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant being €700 million over budget. Johnfos (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as this content is simply not notable. I concur that overruns in Finland, etc. are relevant to the Economics of new nuclear power plants piece, but the original source data should be used, not the "repackaging" of them in the Greenpeace report. Revr J (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This report is not notable, and its subject is covered by Economics of new nuclear power plants Jll (talk) 09:59, 11 July 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.