Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GE 1.5 mw wind turbine


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GE 1.5 mw wind turbine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems too much like advertising or plain product information with no encyclopaedic content. Author claims it is referenced "in several places on wikipedia" but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/GE_1.5_mw_wind_turbine shows just two, one to the PROD listing. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP Automobiles are great, and favoring a keep or a delete on this article is no reflection on one's enviornmental concerns. It's worth noting that the list of automobile manufacturers shows that there are many companies out there that manufacture these.  It doesn't take long to see that the description of any specific automobile would apply to other automobiles (four wheels, cab, gearbox, cruise control, engine).  I'd like to see a larger article about the automobile, but the distinctions between Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, etc., can be described in fewer words. kovo138 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you attempt at a sarcastic demonstration of whatever your point is, completely eludes me. Could you please explain what you actually ment? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I would be glad to clarify that for you.  My intension was to cause the reader to think of wind turbines in terms of automobiles (cars).  As you may know, all cars are basically the same.  It is generally accepted that they have four wheels, a cab, a gearbox, cruise control, an engine, etc.  Yet there is not one single listing on Wikipedia for all automobiles, and this is acceptable.  Maybe it can be done better, but this article is in its infancy.  It’s not finished growing.   It is accurate, informative, and long over do.  Most importantly, it is a start.  If someone doesn’t like an article, they should fix it!  Not whine about how it shouldn’t be there. kovo138 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Wind turbines are great, and favoring a keep or a delete on this article is no reflection on one's enviornmental concerns. It's worth noting that the list of wind turbine manufacturers shows that there are many companies out there that manufacture these.  It doesn't take long to see that the description of the GE 1.5 mw wind turbine would apply to other horizontal-axis wind turbines (three blades, axis hub, gearbox, yaw and pitch controls, generator).  I'd like to see a larger article about the horizontal-axis wind turbine (the current article lumps it in with Dutch windmills and vertical-axis turbines), but the distinctions between GE, Vestas, Gamesa, etc., can be described in fewer words. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the most widely used wind power turbine in the world. . Added some refs. Novickas (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Also - wrt to referenced on WP - it does show up in several wind farm articles as "General Electric 1.5 MW wind turbine" . Novickas (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I would tend to err on the keep side here with this caveat: is this a class of turbine created by GE or is it a specific product? That's not clear, but either way if it is a widely used item in the industry, could evolve into a useful article. My spam radar isn't going off here either. -Quartermaster (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a series: the 1.5se, 1.5sle, 1.5xle, etc. Novickas (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * GE has only three models in business. Perhaps it should be merged into a single article; see my comment below. Rehman(+) 01:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable wind energy product, but the article could use better referencing. Warrah (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep seems reasonably notable. However, could perhaps be merged into a larger article if one such as suggested above by Mandsford is created. DES (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable product by a notable company, of course articl should be greatly expanded (units sold, where operating, etc.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Change: Change to a parent article like "GE Wind Energy", and list all GE turbines there. It helps prevent a "GE 2.5MW wind turbine" or so on. A table too would help. Regards to all. Rehman(+) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a very good idea! Warrah (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but there are so many dedicated locomotive and computer series articles on WP, -  this article looked an acceptable instance of the pattern. It's been my impression that the stand-alone-worthiness of an article is based on its potential for expansion using multiple reliable sources. I believe that applies to this article. It could contain background, specs, marketing, installations (12,000 in 19 countries), performance (noisiness, reliability) sections. A Gscholar search on ("General Electric" OR GE) "1.5 MW wind turbine" yields 112 results . A Google search on government domains for "(General Electric" OR GE) "1.5 MW wind turbine" site:.gov) gives 43 results,  39 hits in edu domains . Novickas (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Warrah. Novickas, although i still support merging all to one article (because the other two models are also quite popular), i would suggest renaming this page to the latest model number ("GE 1.5XLE" or "GE 1.5XLE Wind Turbine") and list all older models in an "Older models" section. Of course, only after consensus is reached to keep. But yet, i still support a merge as a good table and good notes would do the trick in adding all to one page. Best regards. Rehman(+) 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (or move?) with caveat. Create the Parent Article first with the different types of turbines as part of it (as suggested above). Once they reach unwieldy paragraph size, then split them out. I would also mention that the Link user:Novickas points to above, (mentioning "most widely used wind power turbine in the world") is not a reliable source, its a PR from a company mouthpiece. The overall topic is notable, I am just not sure how notable any individual piece of hardware is without the Parent to explain the context of why. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could agree to disagree for the duration of this AFD; I'd be willing to discuss a merge to GE wind turbines at its talk page afterward. Adding the 2.x and 3.x model info would take some time. As far as most widely used in the world, yes, that's probably not the best-sourced statement; I'll take it out of the article and replace it with this statement by the NREL, that "More than 10,000 now operate at commercial wind farms around the nation, accounting for about 50 percent of the U.S. market." . They mention its market share as a reason for installing one at their Colorado facility. Novickas (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep per above comments. An umbrella article on GE Wind Turbines is probably the better idea, with this article being a part of that. Admittedly the article needs work, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (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.