Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudi A Hydropower Station


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Rudi A Hydropower Station

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability, reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. Will be adding several others to this AfD. Not every power station is notable.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * False claim by User:onel5969 stating reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. This user had blanked and redirected multiple articles with same reasons (stating undersourced?). The right path is to tag such artciles undersourced instead of blanking the page (possible vandalism) and putting a redirect. Anyway, the revert was done clearly stating the reason. See e.g. or . Obviously, i did not type same thing in each of his blanking. nirmal (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * False claim by User:onel5969 stating reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. This user had blanked and redirected multiple articles with same reasons (stating undersourced?). The right path is to tag such artciles undersourced instead of blanking the page (possible vandalism) and putting a redirect. Anyway, the revert was done clearly stating the reason. See e.g. or . Obviously, i did not type same thing in each of his blanking. nirmal (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * False claim by User:onel5969 stating reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. This user had blanked and redirected multiple articles with same reasons (stating undersourced?). The right path is to tag such artciles undersourced instead of blanking the page (possible vandalism) and putting a redirect. Anyway, the revert was done clearly stating the reason. See e.g. or . Obviously, i did not type same thing in each of his blanking. nirmal (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * False claim by User:onel5969 stating reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. This user had blanked and redirected multiple articles with same reasons (stating undersourced?). The right path is to tag such artciles undersourced instead of blanking the page (possible vandalism) and putting a redirect. Anyway, the revert was done clearly stating the reason. See e.g. or . Obviously, i did not type same thing in each of his blanking. nirmal (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * False claim by User:onel5969 stating reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. This user had blanked and redirected multiple articles with same reasons (stating undersourced?). The right path is to tag such artciles undersourced instead of blanking the page (possible vandalism) and putting a redirect. Anyway, the revert was done clearly stating the reason. See e.g. or . Obviously, i did not type same thing in each of his blanking. nirmal (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * False claim by User:onel5969 stating reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. This user had blanked and redirected multiple articles with same reasons (stating undersourced?). The right path is to tag such artciles undersourced instead of blanking the page (possible vandalism) and putting a redirect. Anyway, the revert was done clearly stating the reason. See e.g. or . Obviously, i did not type same thing in each of his blanking. nirmal (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to List of power stations in Nepal - none of them warrant their own article and what little info they contain could easily be summarised in that list Spiderone  11:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It takes considerable effort to maintain a list, while, an article attracts editors with potential knowledge faster not only to improve/add information but also other sides such as copy-edit. For the time, being I have added reference in the main articles (which are in Nepali, they can get a lead by translating perhaps)nirmal (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:JUNK not notable, has no redeeming qualities. We don't include random hydropower station just as we wouldn't include every stop light in the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all the notable power stations in this list. Power stations usually are notable, because construction is expensive, disruptive and controversial. They get a fair amount of news coverage. I see no evidence that the nominator has searched Nepali sources for coverage. Certainly Rudi-A is notable, and even has English sources like . Can the nominator identify any of these power stations for which a search does not find any evidence of notability? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur—it seems fairly clear that the nominator did not do a proper WP:BEFORE, making this a bad nomination. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the nominator out of this and focus on the issue of whether the articles should be kept or not? The nominator is perfectly at liberty to challenge the articles without being pilloried. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep All . I created all of those articles. It seems the nominator did not attempt to search in Nepali. This is not the first time though. Based on my experience with wiki-deletion nominators, I had put the Nepali text in the article page hoping that anyone with the reasonable common sense first search in both English and native language. But it did not happen (again). Second, it seems like some kind of revenge by User:onel5969. This user had redirected all the articles to the list. Well, I am well aware of that list because I added/updated the information in the list recently and few times before. I reverted his edit giving him sufficient reason: (a) these articles are WP:STUB and (b) contains some additional information not available in the list like coordinates and design parameters. Though not related to this topic, I want to share one funny fact. Few months ago, there was another nominator who tied to delete a list because he thought it did not contain notable articles. So its kind of vicious cycle of chicken and egg. nirmal (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update- I added additional references to all the articles (including those in Nepali language). I hope the nominator will be active enough to open the links and translate and decide if it feels like WP:JUNK or find other ways to delete them (lol!). nirmal (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Keep I suspect a good dose of COI in these creations, but AGF has me shelving that product of a nasty, suspicious mind. If List of power stations in England is a thing (and it is) and Barnes power station, decommissioned in 1959, has a page (and it does), then these Nepalese power stations are notable enough for inclusion. Strange as that may seem. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see any conflict of interest. The power plants are run by various different private companies and have long term contracts with the state power company. A WP article has no commercial value to them. I have pumped up some of the articles. There are plenty of sources. The plants cost a few million dollars to build, suffer from floods, earthquakes, landslides, bureaucratic delays etc., block fish migration, destroy farmland, divert irrigration water and so on. Notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just voted keep, so there's very little point indeed in telling me they're notable, is there? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Expertise and COI are two different things. Happy editing!! nirmal (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The nominator said "no explanation or attempt at improvement"; there has been quite a bit of improvement since then. Keep per WP:HEY. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep All have a considerable amount of information and notability. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2020 (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.