Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (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)

primary website down, and project almost unreferenced in literature. no usable information exists and article is vague. Ysangkok (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the program was later absorbed into another one called GNEP, it didn't take me long to find sources about the AFCI version of the program. I've added one to the page. PianoDan (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: according to IFNEC, that program was previously the GNEP. So why not just merge AFCI into IFNEC? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. That said, in this case, I wouldn't object to a merge and redirect. PianoDan (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan:. I do not think there are any signs that IFNEC did anything else when using the previous names. We do not have an article for the National Cash Register Corporation, we just have the article on the current company, called NCR Corporation. I also advocate for the redirect. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per PianoDan. Merge/redirect can be discussed on relevant talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (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.