Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind turbines


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

List of wind turbines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(Case from unregistered user reproduced from article talk page verbatim)

This article is nothing more than a long list of every wind turbine likely to be encountered. It is also totally unreferenced (it fails WP:RS) and thus every entry is liable to deletion on that ground alone. It is far too long and unlikely to be of interest to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers (i.e. it fails WP:NOTABILITY).

If the wind turbine spotters want a spotters guide then they should set up their own web site and not blight Wikipedia like they have blighted the countryside.

Note: No notification has been left on user pages as most of the contributions seem to be from a small clutch of unregistered IP addresses. As these addresses seem to be dynamic, it is more than likely that the number of contributors (and hence interest) is very small. It is the changing addresses that make the contributors appear a little more numerous than they really are. There is no point leaving a notification on a dynamic IP address talk page as the past user is highly unlikely to see it.86.145.140.153 (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am rather inclined to agree, that the subject is only likely to be of interest to a very few readers (probably able to count them on one hand?). In any case, the article is devoid of references and fails notability on this point alone.  I B Wright (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unreferenced is a reason for article improvement, not deletion. We should welcome the contributions of IP editors, so the identity of editors is not a reason for deletion. The article serves the encyclopediac purpose of keeping a long table of statistics out of the main wind turbine article. "Boring" is not a policy-based arguement for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * From the editor who has waged an almost constant battle against 'anonymous editors' as you regularly describe them. If you consult the deletion criteria any non notable article is ripe for deletion.  A totally unreferenced article is considered non notable.  I B Wright (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Where in my case for deletion did I claim that the fact that most (if not all) of the article has been contributed by IP address editors was the reason for deletion? The only reference to IP editors was in the explanation of why the authors had not been notified, not in the case itself.  Indeed, if I were to have used that as a criterion, it would be nothing short of hypocrisy given that I too am an IP address editor, being 86.150.65.49 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously all the entries need to be sourced, but lists of factual information are very much within scope. This is a tightly associated list of a particular sort of industrial equipment. Wikipedia includes appropriate reference material as well as encyclopedic material. The correct response here is to improve the article.--Talain (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a valid list with clear criteria for inclusion. Sure there are issues but improvement not deletion is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/a8WEDjY_460sa.gif. Oh, and as you'll want a policy based discussion, it's trivia, it's cruft, it's not encyclopedic, there is content missing that can't or won't be added, ever. It can't ever consider itself complete, not every wind turbine will be measured, the list of record turbines won't ever be accurate, true or correct. It's no more encyclopedic than a list of electricity pylons, telegraph poles or lamp posts. Nick (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire, this is the perfect example of WP:NOT as we are not a factory manual and completely arbitrary while there is no reasonable chance of improvement without doing massive WP:TNT, and even then its very hard to argue if the a list of individual wind turbines is notable. Also just because its "factual information" doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia, read WP:EVERYTHING Secret account 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for clarification, this isn't a list of "every wind turbine likely to be encountered". At least the first part of the article has lists of commercial scale wind turbine models. The number of different kinds of commercial models is a relatively small number. This list is in principle no different than a List of aircraft engines or a List of automobiles and can potentially become a fine article. The main question is of sourcing: can these models be linked to WP articles (or sections of manufacturers' articles) describing them or can they be sourced to reliable references? I agree with the talk page opinion that the list of tallest wind turbines doesn't belong in this article and should be removed. --Mark viking (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Linking each wind turbine to a Wikipedia article is unacceptable because Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference to support any article.
 * Similarly, linking to manufacturer's web sites or data does not conform to Wikipedia's requirements on referencing as these would be primary sources. Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable secondary sources to support any material within an article.  Basically put: if there are no secondary sources to support the material in the article, then clearly this is evidence that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion.  -I B Wright (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, linking each entry to a Wikipedia article is one common way of creating stand-alone list-based articles. Please see the manual of style page Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists for details. Both List of aircraft engines and List of automobiles are stand alone list articles of this type. Under the Common selection criteria section of the above MOS page, the first criterion states Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. I am not claiming that List of wind turbines meets that standard; at this point, clearly not. But well-formed list-based articles are a perfectly valid sort of Wikipedia article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the stand alone articles do not exist in the quantity required to support this list, your point is entirely moot. The MoS that you quote also states, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines".  This article fails on the underlined requirements in the worst possible way.  The example lists that you cite are serving as indexes to a series of articles.  The subject article is certainly not an index  as it serves to contain the very information that should be in the linked articles. 86.150.65.49 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The comparison with List of aircraft engines and List of automobiles is completely invalid. Both of those articles are simple lists that link (or are intended to link - in the case of articles yet to be provided) to a full article on the individual entry.  List of wind turbines does not even purport to fulfill that role.  It is clear that the list itself is intended to contain the technical details and even an illustration of each and every wind turbine in existence.  I have made an attempt at trying to find secondary sources to support some of the details in the list and singularly failed.  The apparent total absence of secondary sources, is clear evidence of the lack of notabilty of the subject and that no one else cares.  I also note that the list contains several in-line URLs which are not permitted in articles.  I assume that these are a half hearted attempt at providing some references, but being primary sources, they do not really qualify.  This article is thus unlikely to ever be properly referenced and should be deleted.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this list is rather confusing and of little possible use to any reader. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of tallest wind turbines and delete everything above that. -Haikon 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and that list would also be up for deletion on exactly the same grounds. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the same grounds: that wind turbines "have blighted the countryside"? (to quote the nominator that ironically attacks the article for being authored by "a clutch of unregistered IP addresses" on the article's talk page)? I disagree that the page is a perfect example of WP:NOT, but all the other attacks on the list are valid; it is crufty unverifiable junk that few readers care about, but based on a cursory perusal of how articles in the 'Category:Lists of tallest structures' (which I am too inept to link to) seem to be organized, and considering that one of the tallest structures in the world is, indeed, a wind turbine, it seems like we should have a tallest wind turbines article.  It'd be great to have a list of the most popular/common/widespread wind turbine types as well, but that seems impractical.  -Haikon 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect the article to List of tallest wind turbines and delete everything above, as Haikon suggests, doesn't make sense at all, see Talk:List_of_wind_turbines. There are at least (!) several hundrets of wind turbines with a total heigth of about 199 metres, because nearly every modern low wind turbine on a hybrid tower is designed to stay just below 200 metres. And with construction going on there will soon thousands of such turbines within short time. So if you don't want to count 10-20 different turbine types, each with hundrets of turbines built, then such a list doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to have a article List of the fastest cars and then have thousands of Ferrari 458 Italias (or a different type of car) listed there either. Wind turbines aren't some kind of individual buildings or something like that, they are industry products build in mass production. Andol (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Another editor who cannot comprehend English. Show me where in my nomination that I attacked the article for being authored by a clutch of unregistered IP addresses?  The only reference to unregistered IP addresses was solely in the justification for not notifying the principal authors - nowhere else.  Show me where my criteria for deleting the article included wind turbines blighting the countryside?   They do blight the countryside and I may have said so, but nowhere in my proposal was it a justification in itself for deletion.  86.162.113.26 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of tallest wind turbines, as per Haikon's suggestion. The things that are of significance can that way be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibara (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And what do you do to solve the problem that only a very small part of the existing turbines of the range higher than > 180 metres is (and can be) listed here? If you read that list, you would suppose that these turbines are some kind of rare and special turbines, which they are not. But everyone wo reads this article and doesn't know the background would suppose these are special turbines. Do you really want that? In the whole list, there are exactly THREE special turbines, the two Nowy Tomyśl Wind Turbines with 210 metres and the single Fuhrländer Wind Turbine Laasow with 205 metres. Every other turbine is a turbine made in serial production. And don't underestimate the sheer number of wind turbines built. Every year about 40.000 MW of wind energy capacity are newly installed, so this means, there are roughly 20.000 to 25.000 new wind turbines every year. If just 10 % of them are tall low wind turbines, you have to add 2000 to 2500 turbines in that list. Every year. Nobody can do this. And it wouldn't make sense either. Andol (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete we already have a list of large wind power stations, which to which unique wind turbines like the tallest or most powerful can be added. This article is the equivalent of a List of steam turbines or List of hydroelectric turbines.  Industry catalogs belong in industrial sources.  If there is a community of turbine-spotters like there are planespotters or trainspotters, then perhaps a wikia project would be better suited. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 23 November 2013 (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.