Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear renaissance in the United States

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 no consensus. Although editors agree a rename is needed. Sandstein 05:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear renaissance in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be an article about an event that never came to pass, with over half of its text describing various reasons that it didn't happen. Propose deletion or merging as an example under wiktionary:spurious Spaig (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Rename Most of the content seems well sourced and neutrally written, but the title is very problematic, as the OP notes. Most of the content could be salvaged either by merging it or renaming it something like History of American Nuclear Power in the 21st Century. Even something like that would require some tweaking, so that the article doesn't violate WP:NOTESSAY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was more or less my dilemma - the content itself is fine, but the article as is seems more like a place to keep it than a topic in and of itself. Maybe fold some of the larger "tentpoles" into "History of Nuclear Power" and ditch the rest? Spaig (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is decent article about the nuclear industry Fotaun (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do agree that a rename may be needed, however, this particular topic is notable and is referred to as a "nuclear renaissance" in many academic circles. A simple google scholar search finds numerous reliable results using this phrase. There is even a book titled with it. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.