Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Nuclear Labs

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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Nuclear Labs

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

Notability not demonstrated - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - Phenoix Nuclear Labs has been around for 9 years, it was founded by Dr. Greg Piefer, who has been a pioneer in IEC and Fusion for over 15 years. This company routinely receives press in the Wisconsin area , here are three examples:

http://www.jsonline.com/business/89368117.html

http://www.ibwisconsin.com/In-Business-Wisconsin/August-2012/SHINE-brings-a-light-of-hope-to-cancer-and-heart-patients/

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/article_374ce040-d022-11df-bfd9-001cc4c002e0.html

The company has grown to 30 employees and the technology they have developed is really cutting edge stuff. Their patents discuss gas-based IEC devices. These machines do nuclear fusion reactions which produce neutrons. PNL has developed some of the worlds best commercial neutron sources - 10^14 Neutrons per second is no joke. This technology puts them in a unique position to developed radioactive isotopes. These isotopes (like MOLY-99 or Mo-99) are very rare, and very expensive. They have been made in giant machines (such as particle accelerators) in the past, PNL has scaled down the size of these machines considerably. This gives their spin-off company: SHINE technologies, a very unique and exciting position in the market place. PNL is one the best examples of commercial applications of fusor devices. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the company has a credible, extensive list of partners and staff: the US Army, the NNSA, TechSource and (a few years ago) Los Alamos National Labs. As a kicker, they have a NASA astronaut on their board of board of directors.WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ukexpat. No evidence of corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note~~,Keep, I don't know much about this company, (not affiliated in any way, etc, etc), but Phoenix Nuclear Labs (PNL) and their partner SHINE medical technologies are routinely in the news, at least in southern WI, due to the process that they developed to produce MOLY-99 or Mo-99. Apparently the company SHINE was formed by several of the people involved with PNL to actually use the process they developed. The way it is portrayed in the Wisconsin State Journal is that they will build a plant near the airport in Janesville, WI and produce Mo-99, which has a halflife suitable for shipping, to be shipped to hospitals through out US who then use it to make isotopes with short halflives that are suitable for nuclear imaging. One of the issues mentioned in the newspaper is that the main source of this Mo-99 is a Canadian reactor that uses highly enriched uranium, but the PNL process doesn't use HEU, thus reducing the risk of proliferation, etc. Additionally, the Canadian reactor is supposedly shutting down in 2016 making this process even more important, at least that's what they claim to the press anyway. It seems to me that this is something that is notable, but I don't know where that process would be best covered on wikipedia or if an article about the lab is necessary. Nuclear medicine#Source of radionuclides, with notes on a few radiopharmaceuticals seems to cover some of this ground. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The jsonline source and external links to regional newspaper constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. We don't delete an article on notable companies just because the article is poorly sourced. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, an editor, affiliated with the company has cleaned up the article, but now it reads like a press release or advertisement and has no / few third party sources. I think the company is notable, but it's a COI and press release now. I think it could be kept on wikipedia, but it needs someone more knowledgeable than I am to tone it down without stripping it to nothing. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the COI editor didn't really change the prose in any significant way, just added press release references. An anonymous editor did some removal of promotional fluff, improving the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? this diff removed several secondary newspaper sources and replaced them with press releases and added 4 sections with no citations. Since I made the above note, it has been toned down a bit and citations have been added. I wasn't saying it's wrong or that it's a bunch of lies, just that it lacks third party sources and and has a press release / advertisement feel. I'm not saying I can do much better with the article, but it does have some issues. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with @Dual Freq:, it's a notable company but the current version of the page should probably be erased and started over, maybe even as a stub. Andrew³²⁷ 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's notable it is notable and that means "Keep". If its current article is imperfect and should be edited, that does not mean "Weak Keep". Editing is not for AFD, that is for Talk page of article and/or tags on the article (hopefully with clear corresponding explanation at Talk page). --do ncr am 15:47, 20 July 2014 (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.