Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corona Wind Projects


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Corona Wind Projects

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP.

Coverage is located in an extremely niche-area of energy-resource-websites.

As things stand, Ref 1 is the website of the manufacturer, Ref 2 is from a source which claims to engage in paid-promotion and Ref 3 is slightly better (with some acclaim) but equally dubious.

Overall, nothing apart from the fact that setting up of a huge wind-farm has been approved by PRC, (which does not even guarantee a completion).See WP:NOTNEWS. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed this as "delete", but am relisting it after a user provided additional sources on my talk page (permalink). Please take these into consideration.
 * Delete I had a look, but I can't find anything that's not sourced to a press release, or otherwise an independent source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is to advise you about this relisting.  Sandstein   18:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Our coverage of significant infrastructure has always been comprehensive, even for major proposals, and considering the topic, the sourcing is sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that we shall grant an independent article to major proposals, which no mainstream reliable source has even minimally published about. The entire coverage is based on churnalism and in niche-area-sources. &#x222F; WBG converse 03:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the ieefa.org is a junk source.  Though it is lifted from The Albuquerque Journal https://www.abqjournal.com/1193178/pattern-energy-harnesses-nms-blustery-gusts.html. I Suggest looking at the other major on shore and offshore proposed project articles most are a similar standard to the way this one is, and this article can be easily improved.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Other shit exists. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * to quote WP:OSE"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. I suggest you read it next time, and we stop firing insults at each other :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not intended to be insulting and I apologize, if it came across as so:( Will reply in a while. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- Over Sandstein's t/p, Ronald has self admitted that his sources are press-releases or derived from them and that too in niche websites. He deems the one from UtilityDive to be non-press-release based but as I said in my nomination statement, the source has self-declared to indulge in paid-promotion. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 03:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It fits well with the list of large proposed onshore windfarms List_of_onshore_wind_farms. I have added it to the list. The article can be improved with some history which has got references.  There are independent sourced references for all the points in the article including the authorities decision to approve the project.  In terms of the existing stub articles it is about mid quality (and yes they are not great quality:).  The offshore proposed wind farms look like they are better quality articles, List_of_offshore_wind_farms, however entries point to one article. Happy to have a go at improving this article and moving it towards the standard of the proposed offshore wind farms.  Even as it is I think it should stay.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly provide those independent sourced references. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Will update article :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No updates, yet........... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment (Keep :) Now has ref to local news (ALBUQUERQUE Journal) as well as trade news. Major proposed wind farms are well established as being sufficiently Notable.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it formally passses the GNG, but it's very much a run-of-the-mill wind farm. --Slashme (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.