Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind power in Delaware


 * 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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wind power in Delaware

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable

I'm proposing deletion of the article as being non notable. A 'Notability' header was present on the article for two months. The state also has very little potential for developing any significant amount of electricity from wind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflafla1 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. The topic of windpower in Delaware seems notable; there are multiple references and sources;  I just added some material using information from one of the already-linked external links, adding a new inline reference for that.  What matters for notability is the existence of sources.  It is off-topic to argue about the amount Delaware's wind potential, but i have seen wind power maps that are really clear about coastal / off-shore wind power potential being vast, while in most of the U.S. east there is little wind power otherwise (there is lots in midwest though), and Delaware has the off-shore type of potential, AFAIK. -- do  ncr  am  22:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - part of a series on United States energy law, WP:LAW is trying to create a comprehensive set of articles and stubs on this necessary yet obscure intersection of law and technology. Actually, I question the allegations above: wind energy on the east coast has great potential. Several articles at Google scholar directly address this issue. Recent articles here and there note recent progress. I'm not sure the nominator has read WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable topic. Plenty of reliable secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2014 (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.