- 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. Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Flibe_Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Sorry for the double entry for deletion, first time doing this and was not sure how to fix the first. Company has not produced anything noteworthy. The design section is a summary of a marketing presentation and proposed technology, and the majority of citations are to statements made by the CEO. The entire section on cost estimates rely on statements by the CEO. References are to company press releases, presentations by the company, articles written by the CEO, the company youtube channel.By the criteria of WP:COMPANY this company is not noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes911 (talk • contribs) 16:17, February 8, 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the sources of some parts of the article do not conform to proper external standards, then those should be removed - not the entire article. The company is currently working with the United States Department of Energy with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on their technology. The Department of Energy is also supporting and funding advanced reactor technology, which include this company's designs. Instead of trying to delete the page, a better attempt should be made at validating the company's claims and removing parts of the page that are either incorrect or do not adhere to Wiki standards. --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability for a company is well defined in wikipedia guidelines. Significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Of the relevant citations (eliminating those on the tech, as whether the tech is notable or not is irrelevant for discussion of whether a company based on said tech is notable) None meet this criteria. They are to statements made by the founder, links to company pages, links to company youtube channel, and links to blog posts by the founder. The lack of relevant sources makes this article indistinguishable from spam and a company trying to build notability by simply having a wikipedia page. The sources fail to pass WP:INDEPENDENT. To quote the notability guidelines for independent coverage a company "too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.". No sources pass this. If the article was cleaned up to be consistent with NPOV there would be nothing left other than a discussion of molten salt reactor technology, which already has its own wiki page. Other than a discussion of tech best left on the MSR pages, no content here passes NPOV.Potatoes911 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that some of the content on the page should be removed. I do not think that it would mean removal of the entire company page. The company has gotten attention from multiple credible sources such as the Washington Post, Business Insider, MIT Technology Review, and The New York Times. They are also working with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (a Department of Energy Laboratory and location of the Hanford Nuclear site). Other companies in the gen IV reactor field have their own Wiki pages - Transatomic (defunct because they made serious errors in the analysis), TerraPower, and Terrestrial Energy. None of these companies are currently building an operational reactor either, do you propose they be removed as well? --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If those references exist, they are not cited in the article. The only coverage in credible sources cited is passing and a sentence or two. As a result no reference passes: Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary as called out in the notability guidelines. Working with a National lab does not contribute inherent noteworthiness, just as being an employee of a national lab does not make the individual worthy of a wiki page. This is the first I have heard of those other companies, and whether this company's competitors are noteworthy or not and have wiki pages or not is irrelevant to the notability of the company under discussion. Potatoes911 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2019 (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.