Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power stations in the United Kingdom


 * 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 and Convert to Disambiguation Page for individual countries concerned. (Non-admin closure). A1octopus (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

List of power stations in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I created this page in early January, then nominated the page under G7. But it was later contested by Polargeo, which I agree with. It is almost impossible to fulfil the purpose of this list; listing all power stations in the United Kingdom. Thus regional lists are now available, which covers this area. Rehman(+) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect to a disambiguation page for Lists of Power Stations in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. Since this page contains no information not already in those pages, but that (IMHO) the information in those pages is notable, this would seem the best way of doing it. A1octopus (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that this should be turned into a disambiguation page. The articles cited by Al (List of power stations in England, List of power stations in Scotland, etc.) are a lot more comprehensive than this page, and I see no need to merge those into a gigantic page.  Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The suggestion that it is impossible to maintain this list seems absurd. The power stations in Great Britain are part of a single grid and dividing by principality makes little sense.  If we were to subdivide, this would be better done by type - gas, coal, nuclear, etc - or by operating company.  In any case, this is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I had overlooked it when I read the nomination, but the same person who created the page (User:Rehman) is the person who is now nominating it for deletion. I think it's a case where someone had an idea, and then reconsidered it after writing began.  When it comes to deletion, I'm less likely to favor "stomping the sandcastle" if a person has put a great deal of work on a project and is wanting to improve it.  Another person did make some additions, but it would still be a large project to bring the three separately organized pages into one consistent article.  When and if that does happen, then I would recommend following the organization for the Scotland page. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How we got here is unimportant as it's readers that matter, not editors. A reader who is interested in the UK's energy policy will not want to collate a variety of regional sublists and so it seems best to address the topic at the level of the state and main island.  If the article in question refers to the smaller lists and summarises them, then we might get the best result.  In any case, this seems a matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Colonel. If i understood right, would you then agree if i convert this article to a disambiguation page like List of power stations in Asia? Rehman(+) 14:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a big help to readers, but truth be told, the editors matter more than the readers. In fact, readers contribute nothing to Wikipedia, although those of us who contribute do our best to make it a more enjoyable experience.  And if a reader doesn't like it, that's their problem, they're as welcome to edit as anyone else.  Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. It seems like deletion is out of the question here. Like i said above, would everyone agree if i convert this page to a disambiguation page? Rehman(+) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit.  If someone wants to make a gigantic article out of it later, good for them!  It's the encyclopedia they can edit too.  Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I guess this discussion can now be closed? Rehman(+) 03:50, 9 April 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.