Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Canada


 * 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   no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

List of wind farms in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The page duplicates everything from its parent page, List of power stations in Canada, (the page also duplicates its own entries within the page itself). This is very similar to the deletion discussion which successfully ended (as redirection) at List of wind farms in Sweden. I propose a deletion or redirection of this page. Rehman(+) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of power stations in Canada. The original article's size is well within the accepted limits. This unintentional fork seems unnecessary. — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This really is growing quite tiresome as this is another in a recent series of similar AfDs for Rehman, see        Thankfully most of the articles which have been put up for AfD have been kept, as limited duplication is involved, and wind farms are a notable topic.  The nominator appears largely unable to use Talk pages to initiate discussion and move things forward in the normal way, and so moves quickly to AfD. I have asked him to stop this disruptive behaviour and use the AfD process as a last resort, see Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Australia, to no avail it seems. Johnfos (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this should have been taken to the talk page, but the problem of duplicate content is still there. The sortable unified list of the parent article is comprehensive, flexible, and concise. I just don't see the need for splitting it into a bunch of separate mini-lists and keeping them on a separate page. — Rankiri (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have many notable wind farms lists on WP and I would like to see this article kept as part of a series of articles on "List of wind farms in xxxx". The article is not mere duplication as, for example, it includes five images which are not included in the power stations list. This article could also be expanded further to include more detailed information about proposed wind farms, etc. as many wind farm lists already do. The article as it stands also allows more specific categorization, which is useful to readers trying to find this info. To trim wind farm info and then bury it in a mega-articles on power stations is not the best way to go. Johnfos (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Rankiri. Please see my comment to Warrah below. Kind regards. Johnfos, (along with this message dropped on my talkpage), it is moreover turning tiresome to you because most of these articles happens to be articles which you think you own. Rehman(+) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rehman, I can assure you that I don't own this article, and see that it was actually started by User:Kurieeto in May 2005 ... Please note that User:Warrah has said above: "This is an improper AfD. There is no clear violation of editorial policy, which invalidates the call for deletion".  User:Beagel has said: "we should try to find the overall solution and consensus on the relevant project (in this case WP:Energy, I suggest) talk page". If you won't follow my suggestions please follow theirs. Johnfos (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here after your comment here. Please avoid scattering comments and keep topics relating to this discussion to this page. And i am watching this page, you dont have to duplicate comments made by users here to my talkpage. Thanks and regards. Rehman(+) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an improper AfD. There is no clear violation of editorial policy, which invalidates the call for deletion, and an argument for a redirect should be done on the article's talk page or through the WikiProject connected to the subject. Warrah (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Warrah. I am sorry that you misunderstood, but this is not a redirect proposal. I only propose that as a second option after delete. As mentioned in the nomination, the page duplicates everything from its parent page, thus suits for deletion. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say this, but this sounds like Wikilawyering (no offense meant). If we look to the history of both articles, you could see that there was the List of wind farms in Canada, which was moved to the List of power stations in Canada. This move created a redirect (and I think that that kind of redirects should be in place). There was no request to delete the redirect this time. The deletion was requested only after the list of wind farms was recreated. So, the AfD is really about redirecting the List of wind farms in Canada to the List of power stations in Canada as proposed also by several editors at this AfD page. Also, please let me refer to the results of some similar AfD discussions: Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Sweden – the result of this AfD was redirect; Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Australia – the result was keep, without prejudice to a merge to List of power stations in Australia. There is a number of several results. Based on this it could be concluded that notwithstanding the fact if these nominations are technically AfDs or not, by their nature they are actually merging and redirecting discussions. Beagel (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. In recent weeks there has been a number of AfD discussions about the different lists of power stations. It seems that going through all these discussions (which are actually discussions about merging and redirecting, not classical AfD discussions) is not practical usage of time, and that before continuing with single AfD discussions, we should try to find the overall solution and consensus on the relevant project (in this case WP:Energy, I suggest) talk page as proposed by Warrah. Beagel (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Beagel. Please see comment above. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rehman. I think you missed my point. What I said is that there are hundreds of lists on the type X power stations in country Y. We already had around ten AfD discussions on these lists repeating every time the very same arguments, and having quite different results. This is very time-consuming and just not sustainable approach. Therefore, my proposal was to have a centralized discussion find find consensus on the general approach what to do with that kind of lists—what are the criteria for keeping separate lists and in which case these should be merged and redirected to the list of power stations in country Y. And as already mentioned, the best place to do this is a relevant WP talk page. Beagel (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ow i get it. Yes i missed the point . That seems very reasonable. Will definitely post in the relevant Wikiproject in the future (since this has already been started). Perhaps we should start some sort of a "Manual of Style" for Wikiproject Energy? Would help, wouldnt it? Kind regards. Rehman(+) 07:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets start with some sort of guidelines for the energy-related lists. But as this is not the subject of the AfD discussion, I suggest to continue this discussion at the WP Energy talk page. Beagel (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Same reason as i mentioned at the above mentioned delete page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_wind_farms_in_Sweden). A parent page would always help expansion and gain publicity. I would only opppose if the the list is too large, which is not the case. 119.235.2.187 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) — 119.235.2.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete or Redirect. No duplicates please. Its is very unpleasant. 119.235.2.53 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC) — 119.235.2.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 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.