Talk:List of windmills/Archive 1

Discussion on notability
I added List of windmills to cleanup on the 15th of last month, but no one's touched it. It's basically been a blank list since it was created in 2002, which does not bode well for its potential to become encyclopedic. - RedWordSmith 05:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless populated by end of VfD: "Eventualists" will say "eventually" an article will get filled out.  Well, we're at 2 years now for this one.  Why not let it be created when it is needed? Geogre 13:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - windmills contain historical and geographical information about various regions. Kabads 06:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added a few items, and eventually the list will get filled out even more. Eugene van der Pijll 18:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously - I cleaned up the formatting a bit. Why require someone to re-create this "when this is needed".  Disk space is cheap, and short articles with potential should stay unless there is a compelling reason not to.  This VfD request does not conform to the deletion policy - it has obvious potential to become encyclopedic. -- Netoholic @ 01:29, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
 * Why recreate it when needed? Because it has one entry, that's why.  Because it has been here for two years without getting a single other item.  The cost of disk space has nothing whatever to do with litter.  Trash on the side of the road is still trash on the side of the road, whether there is a high population or a desert.  You'll note that I said that it should be deleted unless the list got populated by the end of VfD.  Well, the fact that it is getting populated now gives credence to Kurt and others who list things on VfD just to get attention to the articles.  That's not what VfD is for.  Geogre 02:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obviously this is another crap list that no-one is interested in, except when pushed into feigning interest when it appears on VfD. One would do better to search for windmills on Google within Wikipedia than wait for this and many other lists to ever be really worked on, unless a real windmill enthusiast comes along who won't need such a poor beginning and will probably do just as well from scratch. Crap articles don't have potential. People have potential, the potential to write good Wikipeida articles from material found anywhere on the web or in books. A bad stub on Wikipedia is not needed first. There's lots of bad material not on Wikipedia if anyone needs bad material to start with. We don't need to desperately nurture bad material. Bad material on any website can inspire a good Wikipedia article. So keep it there. No-one needs or wants crap, except it seems radical inclusionists burbling about potential. Just as an article on [windmill] should be more than a dictdef before being accepted, so a supposed list should at least be a good beginning on a fuller list before being accepted. Jallan 19:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete windmills are not inherently notable, nor can the list be complete (windfarms anyone?)--Samuel J. Howard 09:53, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * When listed here, this article certainly was a good candidate for deletion, especially after having languished for two years. Funny how so many articles don't get any expansion until they show on VfD, and then are left untouched again after.  Anyway, this one has now been filled out just enough for me to vote keep.  SWAdair | Talk  04:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep'. Is becoming an useful overview. At the other hand, a Category 'windmill' might also do the job. For now my vote stays "keep". Guus 15:16, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hilarious! A list of windmills!