Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortex power


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Vortex power

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has no citation and all the reference links are pointing to archive web. Has no significant contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The South Star Hill (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG, per the coverage in independent, secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub 🛁 23:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur that SailingInABathTub's sources provide significant coverage of the subject (and, for the record, This article has no citation [sic] and Has no significant contribution [sic] were never true). Article is somewhat of a mess but needs to be rewritten, not deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Engineering, Environment,  and Technology. Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article needs improvement certainly, but all of the issues with the article are easily surmountable problems. The article's subject appears notable and meets WP:GNG by way of the sources that were already in the article, and though all but one are in the external links section, they are all still valid sources. I don't know what all the reference links are pointing to archive web means, but if that means that all the links are dead and the only way to view them is through archived links, then that's not accurate but also that's not a reason to delete an article; sources accessible through something like archive.org are just as valid as a live source in terms of verifying information. So just the sources in the article already show notability, when you add SailingInABathTub's sources above to the mix it's an easy yes as far as notability. - Aoidh (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2022 (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.