Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krasnoklutchevskaya Dam


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Krasnoklutchevskaya Dam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very small hydroplant which is not notable. There is no reliable sources about this plant. Automatic translation from ru:wiki. Beagel (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the two newspapers cited in the Russian Wikipedia article, for starters? (It's not good that a translator edited out the source citations that were in the original.  But you've obviously seen the original, complete with the citations.)  Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By my understanding these are local, not mainstream sources. I am not sure if this is enough for a notability in English wiki. Also, both of them are mentioning the dam/power station in the context of the Krasny Kluch (Krasnoklutchevskaya) Spring. I agree that the spring is notable; however, the dam without the spring is not. Beagel (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - these sort of articles are are useful for people interested in civil engineering projects. As an important piece of infrastructure it is also notable -- Mecanismo | Talk
 * Could you please explain the importance of this project? It has an installed capacity of 200kW, which is very small compared to largest hydro projects over 10GW. There are thousands of power plants with bigger capacity than 200kW and certainly not all of them are notable in the en-wiki.
 * This isn't a micro hydro plant. These plants don't just pop out of nowhere and it's always interesting to read and learn from them.  Who cares if there are hydro plants that can generate more power.  Do you believe that only the three gorges dam and similar dams deserve to be shown to the world?  That is, have you single-handedly defined the notability criteria for dams? -- Mecanismo | Talk 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The controversy described in the sources (which can be found in the ru_wiki article) is well worth the coverage and qualifies as notable. WP:N does not discriminate between "local" and "mainstream" sources. On whether the spring is more notable than the dam, it's hard to say, but I'd be OK with merging the dam-specific information into an article about the spring. While both subjects are notable, they are hardly high-profile, so whether the final article will be primarily about the dam or the spring, it probably doesn't matter much anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 21, 2011; 14:46 (UTC)
 * In this form, I would be in favour of deleting the article. But if the language is corrected, notable sources added, then the article could be also kept. The Russian article was also discussed for deletion here, the result was to keep it, but the state of the articles was much better. — Ace111 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Russian coverage does seem to be enough to pass WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2011 (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.