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 redirect to Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom. Given HighKing's thorough assessment of sources, I don't feel like I can close this discussion as Keep but there are a number of editors who value the content so I'm choosing the option of a Redirect as an ATD which preserves the content in case future sources can establish organizational notability. Since discussion in this AFD continued up until just a few hours ago, ordinarily I'd relist this discussion but after 3 relistings, that's not an acceptable option. LizRead!Talk! 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of Newcleo, only routine financial information, as well as quoted claims from their CEOs with WP:PREDICTION claims. In future company may be notable, but right now it's just well written WP:CRUFT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The relevant notability guideline is WP:NCORP, and Newcleo meets the criteria of "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article itself cites several news media sources with significant coverage of Newcleo published in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Here is a small selection of these independent reliable secondary sources (with quotes to illustrate depth of coverage):
The Times (UK), British mini nuclear reactor firm plans €1bn fundraise": "Stefano Buono, chief executive, said Newcleo, which raised €300 million last year, did not need the money just yet... Newcleo's reactors will output about 200MW — many times smaller than regular nuclear power stations such as Sizewell. The reactors at the new Hinkley Point C can output 1.6GW. But Newcleo's reactors would be much cheaper to make, at about €1 billion each, and manufactured in a factory to enable rapid deployment."
The Times (UK), "Stefano Buono's Newcleo wins backing for AMR nuclear reactor": "He has invested $10 million in Newcleo and retains a 10 per cent stake after the founding capital raise, which has attracted external investors including Exor, the holding company controlled by the Agnelli family, and Ian Lundin, chairman of Lundin Energy... While Hinkley’s reactor will be cooled by pressurised water, Newcleo will use lead."
Il Foglio (Italy), "Il ceo di Newcleo ci spiega perché il nucleare del futuro è made in Italy": "c’era anche Newcleo, la pepita made in Italy del settore nucleare, che ha annunciato un investimento da 3 miliardi di euro nel periodo 2023-2030 per lo sviluppo del primo reattore modulare di quarta generazione da 30MWe e di un impianto per la produzione di combustibili nucleari innovativi. Con sede a Londra, la start-up è stata fondata nel 2021 dal fisico Stefano Buono, dall’ingegnere nucleare Luciano Cinotti, e da Élisabeth Rizzotti, fisica con un passato nella finanza. A Lione, nel giugno 2022, Newcleo ha aperto la sua filiale francese, dove impiega già 70 ingegneri e altro personale qualificato."
Bloomberg (United States), "Nuclear Power Startup Newcleo Raises $315 Million for UK, France Expansion: "Newcleo uses what’s known as a lead-cooled fast reactor, a next-generation technology that operates at atmospheric pressure, making it safer than commonly used high-pressure water reactors... In the UK and France, Newcleo is seeking government approval of building sites and operating permts."
OP's statement is not true even if we consider only English-language sources. However, notability is not only dependent on English-language sources and this company has received significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, in multiple countries (at least 3 countries shown above). VantBellypo (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newcleo has been subject to reliable sources (The Times, Bloomberg, Il Foglio) that show significant coverage (and not just passing mentions), as already described by User:VantBellypo. The Times even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor (i.e., Hinkley's). The above-mentioned sources are generally accepted sources on Wikipedia, they don't contain fan-based content and I thus doubt that the article is WP:CRUFT. The sources put a certain emphasis on, for example, the money that Newcleo has raised, which is not a prediction but a simple fact. This is also portrayed in FAZ, also a source generally accepted on Wikipedia. In addition to that, FAZ highlights Newcleo's technology, i.e., the use of nuclear waste as reactor fuel.[1] --81.110.177.209 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I appreciate the effort you've taken to provide quotes VantBellypo, it's not really clear from the quotes you provided that those sources meet there requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH, which excludes routine coverage such as funding announcements. Additionally, it is not completely clear that those sources meet WP:ORGIND, Il Foglio, for example , appears to be an interview. I'll try and do a search myself of course, but NCORP is supposed to be fairly strict. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 02:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom where it is currently mentioned. At this point, I haven't found any coverage that addresses the company directly to the level of detail required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage falls under examples of routine coverage, though there are enough mentions in coverage of broader topics that this would be a redirect with possibilities of spinning back out in the future, or perhaps at least covering in a bit more detail in an article about the history of development, or other such broader article. Of course, the existence of any future coverage would be speculation on my part. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I spent the weekend looking up good supporting material and I suppose there's sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources to warrant an independent Newcleo article on Wikipedia. Please do me a favour and give some time to improve the article using this source material:
Le Monde: The article describes that Newcleo is becoming Europe's best-funded startup, which is somewhat remarkable, and it also describes that a protoype is already being built. In addition to that, it puts significant emphasis on the backgrounds and it describes Newcleo in reasonably good detail. I reckon that this Le Monde article alone is already indicative of why Wikipedia could have an article on Newcleo despite them not having produced any functional products yet.[2]
Börsen-Zeitung: A German-language source that is similar in content to the Le Monde source. It also describes the funding as unusually fast and remarkable, and it also describes Newcleo's technology. In addition to Le Monde, Börsen-Zeitung mentions that Newcleo plans to build an MOX fuel facility. Due to the nature of that source (Börsen-Zeitung translates into English as "stock exchange newspaper"), Börsen-Zeitung also explains where Newcleo has obtained its capital from.[3]
Ship Technology: The source announces that Newcleo has signed an agreement with Fincantieri and RINA to fund a feasibility study for nuclear use in the shipping industry.[4]
There's also been recent coverage in The Telegraph[5] and fDi Intelligence,[6] but those are at least to a certain degree interview-based articles, and I'm not sure whether they can be used to demonstrate Newcleo's notability. They should work as sources though as they're both reliable and secondary.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of recently found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Le Monde seems like a good source, the German one I'm unsure of. I find this discussion [1] in the Telegraph helps put the company in context. I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funding announcements are not SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^Rothbart, Karolin (2023-03-21): Atomenergie-Start-up hofft auf Milliardenfinanzierung – Newcleo wirbt mit sauberer und günstiger Kernkraft, Börsen-Zeitung, No. 56, p. 11
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, this is looking like a Keep or No consensus closure. I don't see support for Deleting this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as per WP:ATD although Deletion is also a valid option. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Let's look at the sources and invite the editors above who feel these sources meet the criteria to comment:
VantBellypo has looked at four sources through the lens of NCORP and says they meet the criteria. Unfortunately I cannot fathom how VantBellypo can say they meet NCOEP since none of those articles contain "Independent Content" - that is "original and independent opinion", etc, and they all clearly fail WP:ORGIND.
The first Times article is PR, relying entirely on quotes from the CEO and information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and we can see the text is peppered throughout with quotes, fails ORGIND.
The next Times article is older, from 2021, and is also PR and talks about the company's future plans and a profile on the CEO. It contains no "Independent Content" and relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company. It also has no in-depth information on the company, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The anon source says this article is also good because it even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor - no it doesn't, it repeats information from the CEO about his aims.
The Il Foglio article is also PR - the headline even starts with "The CEO of Newcleo explains..." and it is a verbatim interview. It contains no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. The anon IP also likes this article saying it is "significant coverage" but doesn't appear to be aware of the "Independent Content" requirement. The Anon IP also makes an argument about those being "acceptable sources" - which they are for supporting information within the article, but they aren't for meeting the criteria for establishing notability, those are two different standards.
Faz.net is dated 3 days after the PR flurry for the funding announcement but it doesn't add anything new to what we learned from the announcement, also relies on quotations from the CEO, has no discernible "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
Le Monde article is based on yet another company announcement and is what is known as a "puff profile", essentially regurgitating positive information about the company and their execs. Even the headline puts the claim in "quotes". It is (not coincidentally) dated one day after this announcement by the company which has all the same info. Same sort of article as this from Bloomberg or this from News in France. Fails ORGIND, just more regurgitated PR and a puff profile.
The Ship Technology article is dated the very next day after the same company PR with no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND
The Telegraph article is an interview with the CEO with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
The fdi intelligence article is another puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company/execs with no sign of any "Independent Content" whatsoever, fails ORGIND.
Indefensible provides links to two articles available in ProQuest.
The first from MarineLog beings by examining the question on whether a "nuclear option" would solve emissions issues for ships and the first number of paragraphs are devoted to a different set of companies and their investigations. The last half or so of the article mentions the feasibility study involving the topic company's technology (as mentioned in the Ship Technology article above) and then provides a (very) simple overview of the company and how the topic company's reactors work all of which is available on the website and in most announcements. Fails ORGIND.
The final source is from Contify Energy News and it says very clearly that it is an "Original Press Release". I've no idea why someone thinks Press Release meet NCORP criteria - they don't. Fails ORGIND.
From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department - which based on the amount of money it raises, it really should. Some editors appear to consider any old "significant coverage" is sufficient to meet NCORP criteria. That isn't the case. The *content* must be examined and must contain "Independent Content" as per the guidelines. None of these do. This company hasn't build anything yet and is drumming up business - WP:TOOSOON applies and while I wouldn't have suggested a redirect myself, the suggestion is good seeing as the company is mentioned already. HighKing++ 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the MarineLog ref count? Can you do a little better explaining things rather than just throwing more refs in here, as if somehow that explains things? What material is in the Marineref article that isn't simply regurgitated from their announcement, and if you do find "new" "Independent Content", how much of it is "in-depth"? Cos that's the test - in-depth "Independent Content", not just published "independently" which is what you appear to be relying on, but also that the *content* is independent.
Looking at your three new refs, the first is a copy of the "Le Monde" article from 21 March 2023. Total regurgitation of company bumpf with no "Independent Content" at all. Compare its content with, for example, this article in BNN which is almost identical and both based on the same company-provided material.
The second link appears to omit the headline which you can see here which reads "Newcleo announces plans for €1bn fundraiser as it targets UK nuclear industry". The entire article is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND. Here's an even better and more detailed article published in Nuclear Engineerin International the next day but which is also based on the announcement and also fails ORGIND. Or this one in The Times published on the same day, contains the same information based on the Announcement, also fails ORGIND and which was a follow-on article from this one in January where the topic company pre-announced their intention. That also fails ORGIND because it is also based entirely on company PR.
The last reference is this one from the Financial Times. The part about the topic company is three sentences and the last sentence is based on a quote from the CEO, leaving two sentences, both of which are a mere standard description of the company and a lack of "Independent Content", thereby failing ORGIND.
Can you perhaps check before you produce any more refs that the material isn't just regurgitated PR or based entirely on an interview? Try to at least identify a paragraph or something which contains "Independent Content"? HighKing++ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison, but I disagree with your characterization of articles as lacking ORGIND based on just "puff pieces" from the company. These are secondary coverage in reliable sources. Based on the machine translation of this article, it discusses risks and challenges rather than just positive aspects of the fundraising. - Indefensible (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment concerns the publisher being unconnected with the topic company. The guidelines also require an analysis of the *content* - specifically, what paragraphs can you identify that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So not regurgitated or unattributed content. HighKing++ 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand independence, although others have said the same thing about me. Obviously there is a disagreement. Let us stick with the reference from Le Monde at least for now, since it proves the point and Le Monde is generally considered a reliable source.
(Per Le Monde's Wiki article, "Le Monde is considered one of the French newspapers of record, along with Libération and Le Figaro. A Reuters Institute poll in 2021 found that Le Monde is the most trusted French newspaper." So there should not be much controversy over using a reference from Le Monde in general. You previously wrote that "From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department," but claiming Le Monde is simply writing "puff pieces" that are repackaged PR from the subject is degradatory to Le Monde's editorial process--I do not see any disclaimer they are publishing a paid article for the subject here.)
In general, well-known businesses (of varying notability) have journalists and business analysts covering them, especially for startups or public companies, such as for investing purposes. (Put WP:ROUTINE aside for now, that is a separate argument.) Reviewing a press release shortly after publication is a completely normal and respectable activity for them to be doing. So your concern about the article closely following the press release is fundamentally not really a major issue. Of course if their article had zero bearing on the company's activities, it would be completely independent but would also probably be completely useless if not made-up fiction. What Le Monde is doing is providing secondary coverage which is based on but independent of the subject.
For example, the press release from Newcleo mentions "risk" but only in terms of nuclear proliferation. In the article by Le Monde, they mention risk in terms of technical reactor operation. And then in the Newcleo press release, they mention "challenges" not to the company but rather in terms of global sustainability goals and how the company will help meet them, whereas critically Le Monde (based on translation) uses challenges and problems (which is not mentioned in the press release) in terms of business operations due to "a technology...[that was] abandoned in 1997 by the French government, after countless technical problems, an exorbitant cost and the considerable mobilization of environmentalists." That is clearly a different meaning and independent analysis.
Therefore I think your analysis is wrong. - Indefensible (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison... It's literally the first source you linked in your second comment, ProQuest document 2788723615, I'm not sure what you could mean by this Indefensible? Are you saying that you haven't read it? I was wondering why you linked it again. But look, if you insist they meet ORGCRIT we can list it at RSN, OK? Just give me a day or two to write something up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that I can see the article on ProQuest but not on Le Monde's website because of the paywall. On Le Monde, the article title appears to be "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe" but on ProQuest the article is titled "Le nucléaire se régénère par les start-up". There is obviously a difference there, right? I cannot look at the other version to compare. In any case, Le Monde is providing secondary coverage on the subject, there is no direct input from the primary source that I can see based on translation. - Indefensible (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Here based on this posting. I have a seen a lot of misunderstanding about WP:NCORP in AfD discussions lately, especially when it comes to WP:SIRS. It is not just about having sources, it is the evaluation of these sources which determines notability for companies. In order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance. The company can be verified and sources exists (although not to meet NCORP), so a redirect would be a suitable alternative to deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to where? You need a proposed target when voting to redirect. - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indefensible:, the only thing "need[ed]" when voting in AfD discussions is competency. That would include reviewing the context of other people's votes prior to asking such questions. I stated "in order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance." The assessment by HighKing includes agreeing that the redirect target proposed by Alpha3031 as an alternative to deletion (pinging both users in case I misunderstood their contention).--CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, I was just asking for clarification instead of making a mistaken assumption as to your position. There are foreseeable cases where you agree in part or with the general argument but not with the specific conclusion. We should try having unambiguous communications to avoid misunderstandings.
In any case, I disagree with HighKigh's assessment per my reply above. What you should also understand is that your understanding of policy is not objectively "correct" but rather subjective. At least, that is my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then make your case on why this meets WP:NCORP using WP:SIRS instead of making accusations about people being subjective. Simply stating "subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements" while providing two sources that fail WP:ORGCRIT is not going to do it. I have both been opining in deletion discussions for a long time based on current consensus on those guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then propose changing them. In the meantime, WP:AGF as just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them "wrong."--CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, did you even read my rebuttal to HighKing? Being subjective is not an accusation, it is a simple fact. I noted my opinion for consistency with that fact.
All I asked for was clarification on your redirect target, nothing more. But if you want to imply my lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I think you should better review your own misunderstandings first. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2023 (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.