Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Wind


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

National Wind

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article was created by someone who may have a conflict of interest. All but one of the sources are from the company itself, and the remaining source describes a 33-employee local start-up. I did not find evidence that the company meets our notability criteria with a search through Google News. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of this page, I do not believe the National Wind entry should be deleted. The purpose of creating this page was not promotional and, in my opinion, does not violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. I created this page because National Wind had contacted various landowners near where I live, which prompted me to do research on the wind energy industry and the specifically National Wind.

Wind energy is a rapidly expanding industry in the United States, and for various economic and environmental reasons, it's posed to remain lucrative for decades to come. After doing my research, I realized the community-based wind energy model benefits local citizens and economies far more than the average out-for-profit development does. The problem was that there was no information on Wikipedia that dealt with the differences between the two different business models.

Therefore, I created a page for National Wind a few days ago, and I recently authored a page titled Community Wind which deals with the overall community-based business model. With all due respect, I do not understand why the Wikipedia employee wrote:

''“All but one of the sources are from the company itself, and the remaining source describes a 33-employee local start-up. I did not find evidence that the company meets our notability criteria with a search through Google News.''

If you check the references, all but three of the sources are published article from outside news sources. In addition, if you type in “National Wind” in a Google News search, there are four news stories on the first page of results that deal exclusively with the company. As mentioned in the article, National Wind was recently featured on the font page of the business section of the Star Tribune, Minnesota’s largest newspaper.

More importantly, it is hard to deny the relevance of the community wind movement or specifically National Wind, the industry’s clear leader. I do not feel the site is overly promotional or biased. The article's language is objective and nearly every potentially contested fact is properly sourced.

I hope Wikipedia reconsiders and does not delete the National Wind page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdsteinberg (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: CEO of this company is named Steinberg. Bdsteinberg, are you related?  Please reveal your conflict of interest if so.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes parts of this read like a press release, and I have no opinion on the COI suspicions. But, the sources present in the article strike me as good enough to preserve the article, at least for now - noting that one of the business journal articles is incognito under a National Wind link (its a PDF reprint). Townlake (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - coming from the Energy Industry (once upon a time) I have to say it does read like an advertisement to me. However, the references seem to be okay (though they could be improved). I think the article could be improved from a language standpoint and the COI thing doesn't mean it needs deletion. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the subject meets the notability policies and guidelines (WP:CORP in particular). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stub and keep. There is a great deal of advertising style language in here that needs to be edited out.  On the other hand, the business is operating in a field that seems likely to generate public interest and disinterested commentary, and it does seem to have already done so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Smerdis seems to have it right. Some of the links to National Wind's own website are to reprints of local press articles, so are much more useful than they look at first sight, though I can't find a mention of National Wind in the Twin Cities Business reprint (help me.)  While its model of community co-ownership is unusual (unique?), I would like to see it do something that gets it into the national press (not just trade press), but with 33 employees doing project management and property development, that may not be soon.  When it does, someone will be justified in creating a Wikipedia article. There is no guideline to prevent me from saying keep per WP:CORP, but I think AfD precedent does.  See Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) for more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Helping The article's yellow-highlighted sections cite observations from one of National Wind's principals (Pelstring) vis-a-vis wind energy development progress. National Wind isn't mentioned by name in that article unless I'm missing it; this wouldn't work as the only source for the article, and the way the article is described in the article is misleading / needs fixing... but it does relate and work as one source in a framework of many. Townlake (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The language is a little promotional, but I looked into the company and they are definitely relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you look at the In the News portion of National Wind's website, you'll see links to a fairly extensive amount of press coverage.  The references and language need to be tweaked, but the article should not be deleted.  Trichrome (talk 17:09 17,June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a long In the News page linked above (thanks btw) but it seems to be either Minnesota or Iowa news, or trade press, which doesn't change my view, though others are entitled to change theirs. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (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.