Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of renewable energy manufacturers


 * 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   userfy. Moved to User:Americasroof/List of renewable energy manufacturers Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

List of renewable energy manufacturers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article had been prodded but I removed it because talk page discussion indicates deletion is not uncontroversial. Prod rationale by cited WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR. For my part this is a link farm and is borderline A3 (as an article that only contains links elsewhere). I would see nothing wrong with this list if it contained mostly internal links, but if you exclude the section headings the overwhelming majority of entries in this list are external links. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Author) I was hoping to get some help with the article. This rush to delete before something can emerge is premature. Insofar as there are external links, that seems valid. Creating separate articles for every one of 150-200 solar startup plays seems unnecessary, but a brief description of the tech for each would be good. Anthony717 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – This notable information was prodded and then thrown up for afd one day after work began on it – all in violation of WP:Before. Is the information  notable?  Yes.  Can the article be saved with editing?  Yes.  The rationale for deletion based WP:Directory is not met.  The topic is clearly defined as manufacturers of the categories.  The rationale for WP:SALAT is also not met since it clearly defines its boundaries.  All that said, the article is definitely overly broad.  It would be much better and probably would not have triggered the deletion reaction if it had been broken up in smaller more focused articles on what areas where it was fully developed (e.g., wind, solar, wave).  I am willing to work with the original author to implement a more focused bite sized approach for a well researched article.  I appreciate the argument that it is a link farm however it should be noted that since this is a new industry these companies tend to be small start ups (I wandered in while backlinking an article I started on a one of the companies).  Therefore I am asking that the nominator withdraw the afd while this is implemented.  Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, and an article should not be a business directory. There might be a reason for this article if it includes companies with Wikipedia articles and which have sufficient refs cited to support an article. it should not be a list of every flash in the pan idea that someone issued a press release about, as a means of seeking to make them notable or to promote startups to potential customers. Renewable industry is demonstrably NOT a "new industry" since storage batteries, water wheels and turbines, and windmills were widely used in the 19th century, and photovoltaic panels were widely used in the 1970's and earlier. Any historic and defunct company should also be eligible if it has an article or has the refs to support an article. Edison (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * said pretty much what I was going to say. That being said, I would be willing to userfy this article for you guys to work on until it becomes a more suitable list article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would be o.k. with you putting it in either my name or Anthony717.  Just let me know where.  I guess I should be careful what I ask for ;-) Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not needed as we already have List of wind turbine manufacturers, List of photovoltaics companies, and List of concentrating solar thermal power companies. Johnfos (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article looks like a link farm. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Terribly off the mark with regards to our external links guidelines as well as our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory, so much so that editing it to comply with policy would require a total rewrite. As a linkfarm, this article is unsalvageable.  Them  From  Space  20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this ends up being kept then the title needs to be changed, as it is physically impossible to manufacture energy. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTYELLOW and WP:EL. Beagel (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete massive linkfarm, the entire article would have to be completely rewritten, and even then might simply be served better as a series of lists by industry (as we already have.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 23:30, 25 December 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.