Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind power generation in New Zealand (2007)


 * 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   merge to Wind power in New Zealand.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wind power generation in New Zealand (2007)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An original reseach paper, not an encyclopedia article. Yworo (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is clear copypaste (WP:COPYPASTE) from another document but the author has either removed his report or has cleverly otherwise covered their tracks. Point being, there is no reliable source for this document. The Nominator should have submitted this under suspected copyvio-Wikishagnik (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Wind power in New Zealand. Tons of data here, and that's all fine and good. However, no citations. It really does smack of WP:OR. Merge with the general article and cite accordingly. Faustus37 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's OR, what is there that is worth merging? Morwen - Talk 12:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history, you will see that it was split from Wind power in New Zealand on 20 October 2008. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if you look at the history of Wind power in New Zealand you'll see that it was added to that article on the sixteenth of October 2008. It was composed at work at the New Zealand Electricity Commission, using its data and analysis and plotting procedures, as an essay on the spot supplying actual details rather than vague blather. As the originator, I need no clever or otherwise obscuration of tracks: it is not a cut&paste. The uptight can call this "original research" to be banished in their displays of superior righteousness, and I can say that it was an essay published in wp. I had contemplated preparing an annual report on wind generation, but due to organisational incompetence, the electricity commission self-sabotaged its supply of wind generation data. Since April 2008 many data series are missing so any such report could not be comprehensive. Despite becoming the electricity authority, no effort has been made to recover, nor even acquire new data streams for new wind farms. So I've given up in disgust. The article could be removed, and WP be the better for it. NickyMcLean (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment NickyMcLean I would like to see if there is somewhere this could be kept. While not encyclopedic and original research, it does provide a very useful insight into commercial production of electricity by windpower. The commercial aspect may also be the reason why no further data is available. Maybe slip it on to the Wind power in New Zealand talk page as a holding point for future reference. NealeFamily (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * delete It's either WP:OR or it's an unattributed copy of the real paper. Either way, it is unreferenced and unencyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on the comments of the editor who introduced this material, this content was essentially part of a research paper that never came to pass.  Some of it, if it had been published in a reliable third-party source, might have warranted inclusion in the parent article.  But it wasn't; it was "published" here as original research, and Wikipedia policy prevents the inclusion of original research in articles.  Unfortunately, that only leaves one policy-based outcome. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Wind power in New Zealand per Faustus37. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The righteous might be interested in using common sense and its related links. I am interested to see whether rigidity will prevail and WP therefore be the better for its enhanced purity. The text is hardly a "research paper", it is an essay demonstrating some easily-determined aspects of power generation that could be generated by anyone with access to the data and the ability to perform some simple computer prodding, but was generated by me, not as a "research" paper, as has been stated - cf Mangoe and Squeamish Ossifrage - above. To save the prowlers trouble, similar motivation led to the provision of the plots of power generation in Ohaaki_Power_Station Poihipi_Power_Station Wairakei_Power_Station and consumption at Tiwai_Point due to their special interest. Seeing as a few years have passed, they could be updated, and also, many more such plots could be produced but all would be objectionable and the effort wasted. None of these have been published in any paper, though I recall seeing a copy of one of the power station plots (taken from WP and carefully attributed to WP, as is proper) in a report produced by some consultant on some subject - not exactly publishing, but a demonstration that someone found them of use, as is the supposed premise of WP. Nevertheless, orthodoxy is to be upheld, so, with no place for them anywhere in WP, cast out the lot? NickyMcLean (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (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.