Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modular Wind Energy

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 delete. Ged UK 14:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modular Wind Energy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Local promotional or trivial references only DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. References prove existence, not notability. WP is not Yellow Pages. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In addition to the articles referenced in the article, others are found at Google News Archive. [1] Sources include the Orange County Business Journal, the Orange County Register, and Bloomberg Businessweek (a mention only) as well as trade journals. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article went through AfC. I didn't reject it there, but I offered the following afc comment:

This article needs more references to show notability. The first three do not show notability. New location, fifty employees, and new CEO say nothing about notability. The Wind Power Monthly article is a narrow trade publication that talks about MWE's segmented blade. Not clear that segmented blades are unusual -- apparently bolted designs exist but are heavier than using adhesives. The Wind Power article may be independent, but it may be cribbed from a press release: it quotes Ault and cites MWE claims. Google search doesn't turn up independent references to MWE. I would d/corp. Glrx (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a significant change from that position. MelanieN's list is shorter if quotation marks surround the company name, and those articles are more about financing than saying the company is notable.

Segmented blades may be important, but I'd like to see a secondary source for that. The article's claims for significance are a bit bare. Having a patent is nice, but that doesn't say the invention is significant. Being the first segmented/divided blade to pass the IEC fatigue test sounds significant, but there are probably many unsegmented/undivided blades that have passed the test. Glrx (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.