Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's First Nuclear Power Generated Electricity Used A Jensen 50 Steam Engine


 * 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. It's pretty clear what the consensus is here. However I am happy to move the article to user space so that it can be developed. JodyBtalk 22:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

World's First Nuclear Power Generated Electricity Used A Jensen 50 Steam Engine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article reads too much like an essay and contains original research about the subject. The references do not indicate notability or provide enough context about the article. JHU bal  27  00:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wrongly wikified. Fails WP:GNG. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for deletion. Please try to make relevant comments. --ThaddeusB (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 3 February 2015


 * Delete - It's little more than argumentation and original research. I don't see a coherent notable topic, nor does the content seem to be salvageable for merging into an existing article. WP:NUKEANDPAVE.- MrX 02:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:OR, WP:NN. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 03:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow Delete as essay per WP:BLOWITUP. Not sure what it's supposed to be. The title is certainly not WP:NPOV. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 03:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to X-10 Graphite Reactor and delete. Userfy – As the world's first nuclear power generator it's historically significant and not Original Research because most of the statements are based on the newspaper article. I formatted the references (very roughly) and added a link to the original newspaper story. I think this should be userfied. He's a new editor and was trying to add this information by creating an article. What he needs is help to introduce himself on the Talk page of a relevant article, so the editors there can help him get this information into the encyclopedia. He's getting some help about that already on his talk page, so I think what we should do is put this article in draft space, somewhere that other editors can find it. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it looks like most !votes can't get past the title and the article is going to be deleted, I have changed my !vote to merge. I think it can be inserted with not too much modification into X-10 Graphite Reactor. Then other articles on nuclear power can be updated as necessary. To facilitate the merge, I have added the newspaper story as an inline cite. There was also a transcript of the oral history interview cited in the newspaper article. I added that as well as an inline cite.– Margin1522 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't seem to be salvageable. Possibly to be archived under "What not to name your article?" - J man708 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't delete and please do help me get this right.
 * It is important history and should be shared.


 * Thank you very much to editor Margin1522. I very much appreciate your help with some useful editing and suggestions. You are correct saying this is historically significant.


 * I will add that I do not understand why the words "original research" and "too much like an essay" are problems. My research came right from the horses mouth. I drove over 1700 miles round trip to do a fair bit of this research at the X-10 Graphite Reactor in Oak Ridge. Some of the information was also gathered at the website of the American Museum of Science and Energy in Knoxville, TN, the city next to Oak Ridge, TN.


 * What is with user editor NUKEANDPAVE saying this info is argumentation??? It is real history and ought to be properly recorded as so far it has been incorrectly recorded for many years.


 * This reminds me I also have some new photos of this old steam engine and generator. It might be nice to add some of the 1948 photos and one or two new ones to this article. If you watch the video you will see 3 of the most significant 1948 photos and there is one more, They can all be seen (1948 photos) on the link provided that takes you to a long list of photos along with text from the American Museum of Science and Energy describing the photos and clearly stating this was all done in 1948.


 * Regards, Gil Reddrryder (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I know very little on the topic, but I do believe you when you say that this is of historical significance. I'm not question whether this information should be on Wikipedia, especially if it assists the general populace of readers. The issue at hand is that the quality of this article doesn't conform with Wikipedia's standards and requirements of what an article should be. For instance, the title is far too long and far too precise to be utilised in an Encyclopedia. Perhaps this could be listed somewhere in this article/subheading here? The title needs to be consise, whereas the title of this article sounds like a paragraph. It's kinda like calling an article "That guy who was born in Lebanon and was from that movie with the time machine and the other movie with the bus, you know? It's just not quite right.


 * Secondly, your information (while again, I'll take your word on to be accurate and of significance), doesn't contain any references showing the evidence of where about a specific piece of information came from. It's kinda like how in the Bible, people say that it mentions that people shouldn't be gay. What Wikipedia requires is that we must link them to the specific chapter of the book, or page, or whatever, so that the reader doesn't have to spend hours finding this information. Also, as with the above mentioned sentence, a lot of things can be touchy subjects, so Wikipedia must be 100% factual, but mustn't take sides.


 * Perhaps you may want to write up an article within your own Sandbox, where it won't be deleted and you can add to it as slowly or as quickly as you please. When you feel that it is ready, then you can ask for some peer reviews and see if others think it is ready to go live. Good luck! - J man708 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment re title - Ive reinstated the correct title as I nearly ended up closing this discussion! (I assumed the page had been deleted turns out it wasn't!), If you wanna shorten a title please use SHORTENED ONE as that way it becomes shortened and is also not redlinked and please state the shortening on the AFD, Thank you. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Davey2010, could you or someone else who knows how please shorten the title for me by removing the words "Used A Jensen 50 Steam Engine".
 * Regards and thank you in advance, Gil Reddrryder (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean having a different article title you would need to visit WP:Requested moves and follow the instructions there, Changing the title on this AFD solves nothing unfortunately, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Davey2010 Question for you: Is it better to remove this article completely and start over with the correct title?
 * Also, how do I start getting e-mail notification again when someone tries to help me or delete me? I was getting notices the first day or two but not so anymore.
 * Thank you Reddrryder (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Gil


 * Whilst the page is involved with AFD discussions, I doubt that the page will be moved. As I said earlier, "Perhaps you may want to write up an article within your own Sandbox", before creating a live article, which gives you the chance to get feedback. I strongly suggest this. Also, to get someone's attention, type, in order to notify them of your response, like so -  - J man708 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No deleting and rewriting with the correct title is quite frankly stupid.... As I said go to WP:RM and follow all that (Although you should use Requested moves once this AFD's finished!), As for the email notifs - Sorry no idea ... you probably have to disable a setting somewhere in your preferences. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - My understanding is that the author of this article is trying to say that the claim:
 * Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the EBR-I experimental station...
 * in the final paragrpah of Nuclear_power is wrong because the X-10_Graphite_Reactor produced electricity three years earlier. If that is true, then we should correct the Nuclear Power, EBR-I and X-10_Graphite_Reactor articles with properly sourced information. That would make this article unnecessary and suitable for deletion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Basically I am agreeing with that, but there is the matter of assigning proper credit in the article history. Since wrote the text and discovered the sources, it seems like his name should appear in the history of whatever article becomes the destination for this information. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge per . &mdash;George8211 / T 20:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - First: this needs to be deleted as a POV original essay. That said, the information here may or may not be usable in Nuclear power under "Origins," based upon what the actual scholarly sources say. Just because the article currently says "1951" doesn't mean that it is necessarily right. Not my area of expertise, but let's be sure we get it right. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't decide what is or is not correct history, we simply report what the consensus of reliable sources say.  The problem with your article is that it is essentially an attempt by you to say accepted history is wrong.  What we can do is say Oak Ridge National Laboratory (which would be the best place for a merge) attached a "toy engine" that demonstrated nuclear power was possible (consistent with published sources).  What we can't do is say that was really the world's first nuclear power generation (not sufficiently supported by RS).  Hopefully you understand what I mean.  If you think you can rewrite your materially neutrally, I encourage you to try to insert it directly into the Oak Ridge article.  If you don't think you can do that or don't understand what I mean, let me know and I will do it.  (You doing it is preferable for copyright reasons.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not attempting to say anything that isn't true. What I am saying is true and backed up by records, text, photographic archives, and other materials on hand at the Oak Ridge National Labs, home of the X-10 Graphite Reactor. Let me put it this way: I am not attempting to say accepted history is wrong because I have already said it and the records of work performed at Oak Ridge back this up.
 * I am not understanding (not sufficiently supported by RS).
 * If you want to get the article or whatever you prefer to call it into the X-10 Graphite Reactor page, that might be a real good idea as I do not know how to get anything like that done. I am clearly not qualified to be an editor here (not even a little bit) but I do have some historically significant information that ought to be properly shared.
 * You mentioned you "could say they attached a "toy engine". This by itself falls far short of the actual accomplishment. The scientists and engineers at Oak Ridge were clearly on the cutting edge of nuclear power generation technology. In order to "attach the toy steam engine" they designed engineered and built a miniature boiling water reactor completely piped up to a complete and rather sophisticated self regulating miniature steam plant utilizing a Jensen #50 steam engine and generator and hence created the world's first complete nuclear power plant, albeit a very small one. They inserted the small boiling water reactor which had 10 1"x 4" uranium slugs inside it into experiment port #60 on the second level of the working wall or experiment wall of the Graphite Reactor. The little Reactor was pushed inside to the core of the X-10 Graphite Reactor which had continuous nuclear fission. The small reactor was made of aluminum which allowed the high concentration of neutrons flying around inside the X-10 reactor to pass through to excite the uranium fuel slugs inside the little reactor causing nuclear fission and heat which turned the water into pressurized steam suitable for electric power generation. This miniature atomic power plant was operating and generating electricity on September 3, 1948 per records at ORNL.gov. There are links supplied with my article.
 * A quick word about the nature of the "toy" steam engine. It was actually a pretty sophisticated self-regulating model steam engine that is somewhat difficult to think of as merely a toy. Jensen Steam Engines began manufacturing the #50 steam engine in the late 1930's and it was never inexpensive enough to consider it a toy. When they stopped producing it in 1996, the price of this "toy steam engine" was $3,500.00 and it was $250.00 way back in 1948.
 * As for the December 1951 historical record claiming the world's first nuclear electricity generation at EBR-I in Idaho, that simply was never quite true. Of significance, that EBR-I project was the first to power a string of 4 full sized light bulbs and the next morning provided electric power for the entire building it was housed in. I have been told that it was agreed on back then that the EBR-I project would make the claim of the first ever nuclear power generation. EBR-I was the officially funded project to build an atomic power plant which to my understanding is why it was "agreed" they would be "allowed" to make the claim of first ever. All the while, the first ever nuclear power generation occurred just over 3 years earlier in Oak Ridge before the Idaho Project was built. In fact it was a full year before construction even started on EBR-I in late 1949.
 * As for the December 1951 historical record claiming the world's first nuclear electricity generation at EBR-I in Idaho, that simply was never quite true. Of significance, that EBR-I project was the first to power a string of 4 full sized light bulbs and the next morning provided electric power for the entire building it was housed in. I have been told that it was agreed on back then that the EBR-I project would make the claim of the first ever nuclear power generation. EBR-I was the officially funded project to build an atomic power plant which to my understanding is why it was "agreed" they would be "allowed" to make the claim of first ever. All the while, the first ever nuclear power generation occurred just over 3 years earlier in Oak Ridge before the Idaho Project was built. In fact it was a full year before construction even started on EBR-I in late 1949.

Finally, I would like a better title such as "World's First Nuclear Power Generated Electricity" or "World's First Atomic Power Plant at Oak Ridge" or similar. Or it may not need a title if it is an add on to other pages or articles. Thank you for your consideration of my work. Gil Reddrryder (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to pick up my work and do a good job with getting it published properly I am in favor of this as I said before I am not a wiki qualified editor. Perhaps the X-10 Wikipedia page is the place to start and you realize that at some point it might be a good idea to change the information on the EBR-I Arco, Idaho pages (which might ruffle a few feathers) or possibly add some sort of footnote. Either way, the team on the job at Oak Ridge, when the war was over, immediately began developing peacetime uses for nuclear fission and they had a lot of successes in addition to atomic power generated electricity.

-
 * delete Please don't merge original research into other Wikipedia articles and don't keep original research on Wikipedia, that's not what an encyclopedia is. If the author wants to publish this somewhere, he or she is free to do so, but please not on Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. A blatant OR project. Pax 02:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)