Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babadag Wind Farm


 * 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. especially after the sources found by Beagle, few have provided arguments to delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Babadag Wind Farm

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable project for a wind farm, of unknown current status. It is referenced with only one blog post. I found a single article in Ziarul Financiar, suggesting that indeed someone intended to build that wind farm, but no reliable information about its later status. - Andrei (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Maybe the source is not the best and should be updated, but why would you say is not notable? It is also part of a nice series. I would vote to keep and look for better sources. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No news since 2007? Probably shouldn't have been an article at all. Dahn (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have a tremendous amount of poor information about small non-notable Romanian wind farms, compiled by one editor. Often it is unclear if the wind farm is proposed, under construction, or completed. Many are speculative proposals I think, which will never be built. Often the articles are supported by only one (often non-English) reference. To add to the confusion, I notice in this case that the Blue Investment Baia Wind Farm is also being called the Babadag Wind Farm. Johnfos (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found this source, which by my understanding is about the same project. The owner is same and the location is same, although technical information varies from that provided in the article (20 X 2.1 MW). As a joint implementation project, it is notable and the UNFCCC documents provides significant coverage. Beagel (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some additional sources I found:, , . Beagel (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I updated the article and added sources to establish its notability. Beagel (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Windfarms and other power stations are generally notable as they tend to generate significant coverage in reliable sources. Beagel has done excellent work in adding references to such coverage into this article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG delete - As i am an former professional in windenergy, it seems to me that this project is one of those many which are planed by companies and now is searching for investors. Just advertisement. Tagremover (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The wind farm is already operational. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - references found by Beagel appear to demonstrate sufficient notability.-- Kubigula (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided by Beagel.- Andrei (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2012 (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.