Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerset Nuclear Power Plant

:{{la|Somerset Nuclear Power Plant}} ([{{fullurl:Somerset Nuclear Power Plant|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerset Nuclear Power Plant}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Not notable - a proposed nuclear power plant that was canceled a year later in 1975. I can find no reliable sources to say this is notable - google gives 0 results for "Somerset Nuclear Power Plant". Author declined PROD claiming that fact it was a proposed major project automatically makes it notable. I disagree - if it was controversial or significant in some way then maybe yes, but I find no sources to suggest this. Pontificalibus (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Google: no results found for "Somerset Nuclear Plant", "Somerset Nuclear Power Plant". — Rankiri (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

::There are two different Somerset Nuclear Power Plants. One proposed, and one active in England. So I am not sure how you found "no results" as I have found some citations for both (unless your google is censored). rkmlai (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

:::My search for [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Somerset+Nuclear+Plant%22+OR+%22Somerset+Nuclear+Power+Plant%22 "Somerset Nuclear Plant" OR "Somerset Nuclear Power Plant"] shows one single result: the very same article that is being considered for deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. I would encourage editors to take this chance to expand on the start which has been made here. Given that we are looking at the 1970s, I would expect that there wouldn't be a lot on the internet, which tends to have more recent coverage. But books written during the 70s should cover major nuclear plant proposals such as this. And I have today ordered three books from the university library with a view to expanding this and related articles. Johnfos (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand per Johnfos rkmlai (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. Unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on one's perspective—Wikipedia doesn't run on unadulterated optimism and unrealistic expectations. Without any sources there can't be any expansion. The two references mentioned by the article provide insufficient notability for a standalone article, and a number of more extensive Google searches were only able to produce the following [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60E16FF3858157493C4AB178CD85F418785F9 extract from the New York Times] (with a later [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C15FD3A58157493C2AA178CD85F418785F9 correction] that changes the name of the company to NYSEG, from Con Edison) and the following [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fSkVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6924,2426593&dq=somerset+nuclear+plant newspaper article] that discusses the coal-fired plant that was built in place of the proposed nuclear station. From a pragmatic viewpoint, if no additional information can be found, this one-sentence article should either get deleted or merged into a larger article or a list. — Rankiri (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Rename to Somerset Power Plant, this active coal fired unit then to be the main topic of the article. The present text would be relevant in a section on the historical events preceeding the construction of coal unit. Agree that sources are too scarce to support a stand-alone article on the proposed nuclear facility. But there is no need to delete text that, with a few twists, is suitable elsewhere. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (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.