Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growth of wind power in the United States

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. ✗plicit 06:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Growth of wind power in the United States[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per WP:NOTDATABASE the monstrous yearly data tables should be summarized with figures, which they already are at Wind power in the United States. All of the prose topics are already covered in greater detail at the main article, especially in the National Trends section. Wizmut (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Technology, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:NOTSTATS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wind power in the United States already exist. Lorstaking (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is quality information that is a subarticle of Wind power in the United States and also complements state pages like Wind power in New Mexico for comparative purposes. The figures in the main article don't show the same information so this isn't superfluous. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the figures (the bar charts in Wind generation potential and the stacked area chart in Wind power by state) do tell the entire story of the data, which is that capacity and generation are highly correlated, they have both gone up at a rather constant rate, and the trend by-state is identical (at least among the most significant states). More than that, the trends are obvious when looking at the figures, and opaque when looking at a large array.

If any more complex trends emerge, the answer would still not be a very wide and long array. It's just not obvious what you should be looking for, if you don't already know. The main article points out lots of things you might not know, like the most prominent states for wind generation and how generation varies by month.

If somebody was curious to learn about a less-significant state's wind energy industry, there exists Template:Wind_power_in_the_United_States which could also exist as a directory article with other generation sources a la List of renewable energy topics by country and territory. Wizmut (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Data tables in Wikipedia should be simple and concise in order to satisfy wiki's function as an encyclopedia. Large datasets are only useful as citation source for academic research, which I hope no one is using Wikipedia in this way. With the existence of Wind power in the United States, this article just seems redundant. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or smerge. This is a fork of, and an essay about, Wind power in the United States. I would not oppose taking some of the information and citations, and selectively merging it back to the main article. As it stands now, it's a mess. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (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.