Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nuclear Illusion

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nuclear Illusion

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

Although categorized as a book, this is basically a self-published report. Non-notable. Johnfos (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think papers or reports are eligible for articles unless they are truly ground-breaking, this one is not that. Also, its sources are awful, non-notable. Bonewah (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's quoted here and there, but no coverage really to establish this whitepaper as not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly lacks notability.-Mariordo (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute are notable, but this paper is not. It's just part of an ongoing argument between pro- and anti-nuclear Greens (see for example this article)and isn't sufficiently influential to merit inclusion in its own right. andy (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2010 (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.