Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest hydroelectric power stations


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn without dissent, and the merge discussion can continue on the lists' talk pages independently of the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

List of largest hydroelectric power stations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a strong request, but i think that the article suits to be deleted since List of hydroelectric power stations now contains all (+ more) information of this page. Once again, not a strong request, hoping to have a discussion on this. Regards. Rehman(+) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose the suggested "equivalent" list contains less than half the information of the list requested to be deleted. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense. But, such as? Rehman(+) 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think it is a good idea to dispurse a completed list into an unfinished list.Calvingao (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a small question. Currently, the only incomplete factor is the coordinates. The rest is complete, and includes info of the nominated article. So, if the coords were filled, would that make sense? Regards. Rehman(+) 05:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: The list is now fully complete. Currently, there are no elements which the article doesnt have compared to the nominated article. It also contains a good collection of coordinates which this article doesnt. And also lists power stations from 1000MW onwards, instead of 2000MW as this article does. Regards. Rehman(+) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of largest hydroelectric power stations has other informations such as anual generation and area flooded, while the other one does not.Calvingao (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This seems like a merge discussion. Every comment above can be read as Merge. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. It appears to be a merge not AfD discussion. Move the discussion to the talk page and let discuss there if there is a consensus to merge these articles or not. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdrawal of AfD: Pretty good points by all. Also, one way or the other, the article does have some extra info. Besides, what harm can it do if we keep it. Regards to all. Rehman(+) 14:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 4 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.