Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerro Gordo 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 Delete - I looked at the points made for retention and looked at the article. Nothing asserts any significance to the power station - it simply has - the output statistics the plant, and also some peripheral info about the meterological circumstances of the area, and some eniginerring stats about the actual structure. I actually know of a few high schools in my city which have a token 2-3 wind turbines and I can't see how 56 is a "signficant investment" unless Iowa is in the stone age, which I believe it is not. Also Truthbringer's point about the news info has been countered (to be honest, if one line is enough, then high school kids who win math/science competitions would also be notable (they aren't)). As for the hydrodams, they usually require a lot of deforestration and also are usually 1km wide (or something massive), whereas these are a few sticks in the ground. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cerro Gordo Wind Farm
NN.... uh.... wind farm. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I posted this article, because there was not any information on Iowa wind farms. I could be wrong, but I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have vast amounts of information on all topics, not just the ones some people feel are interesting? I propose that instead of deleting this article, it is combined with another article.   Obeano 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Just another small power facility Bwithh 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and User:Bwithh. J I P  | Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blow away (i.e. delete) per above. MER-C 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. Power generating facilities can be notable, and this one has attracted some independent coverage. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I hardly think that a simple one line mention of the wind farm in a USAToday article or even the IBEW Journal could be considered as a real news coverage. -- Nish kid 64 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a tourist attraction and a major business investment in the region/state. To my mind the visibility of wind farms makes it hard for them not to be notable, and certainly in a local context it seems strange to leave it out. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tourist attraction?? Aren't they usually considered eyesores which damage the local scenic countryside & wildlife? It's not really on the scale of a major investment either, unless Iowa is in really bad economic shape. Bwithh 01:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this particular article, but, to be fair, wind farms sometimes do attract tourism in their areas. I doubt this one does, but it would be unfair to lump all wind farms into the eyesore category. GassyGuy 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.clearlakeiowa.com/vi/attractions.htm Kappa 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete A power facility is a power facility, no matter how pretty or expensive it is. --InShaneee 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This fecility must have something very specific to it or unique. Otherwise it is non notable. A purple wikiuser 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are many articles about hydro-electric dams and their electricity generating facilities because they are notable works of engineering, because they are notable as business entities and because their construction raises environmental, farming and hunting issues. Generating stations which depend on fossil fuel are also notable because of pollution concerns. Similarly, wind farms are generally significant business entities, a source of noise, and a hazard to birds which can be killed by the blades of the turbines. And the questions of regulation and government-versus-investor ownership of electricity generation and distribution companies can be matters for significant public concern. Electricity generation is more complicated than it might seem. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You've just given reasons for having an article on wind farms, not for having an article on this particular wind farm. Uncle G 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, locally important facility and tourist attraction/eyesore. Many of the google hits are news sites using the farm to establish the notability of the company which built it. Kappa 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to give any reason why this wind farm is deserving of special attention. Indrian 16:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Wind farm. Cerro Gordo ≠ Altamont Pass. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Wind farm. Michael Kinyon 11:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - too stubby to warrant own existence; no indication of particular notability amongst wind farms in general. (Possibly merge into wind farm article as an exemplar if feeling particularly lenient, although said article seems to be little more than a collection of exemplars already, with no generic information on the topic.)  Cain Mosni 10:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets content policies, has substantial local significance. The problems pointed out by delete voters simply aren't solved by deletion; merging is the appropriate action, if action is needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2006 (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.