Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monitored photovoltaic power stations

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of monitored photovoltaic power stations[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate list of any PV station that happens to have a Web page; these are tiny non-notable installations. This "article" serves mostly as a link farm to drive traffic to one or two Web sites. We have an article for listing large PV power plants, none of these plants qualify. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wtshymanski (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean for the station to be "monitored"? Does that help it be less indiscriminate in any way? What's the scale of infrastructure that these represent? postdlf (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Monitored means there is online data available, such as for the Tepco systems in Japan (Ukishima Solar Power Plant, Ogishima Solar Power Plant, and Komekurayama Solar Power Plant). It does not matter if it is a 1 kW or a 100 MW system, the main thing is to see what the daily performance in that region is. You will note that even though there is an article for those three, I am not interested in that, but only in a link to the data for each. Every state in the US is covered and as many countries as possible. If I am wondering what a system I install will act like, I only need to consult this list and look at a system that is near me and see how it has been performing, making adjustments for any differences. It was complained that this is a "link list of un-notable systems". What is notable is the performance that the system generates in that region of the world. It is as you will a map of the entire world with a data point for each region, or several data points. I considered making the links refs, but all that does is double the length of the article, and mean you have to click on the link twice instead of once, so they were left as links instead of refs. Obviously I recommend keeping this vital article, which is currently listed as a high priority article for the energy project. You will also note that if a project has a "web page" I am not interested in that. I am only interested in linking to a web page that has data, or to the data page for the site. This is a representative list, not an inclusive list. There are tens of thousands of sites that are monitored, and representative sites were chosen from each region of the world. Over the last ninety days the page has been viewed about 1200 times, which is far, far more than many of our obscure but notable topics. Judging from the map I am going to be looking for sites in Iceland, Russia, Africa, and South America, plus a few more areas of Australia. That map is a great tool for checking to see if a region has adequate representation. Apteva (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This looks interesting and useful. It would do well to have a better description (like the one Apteva has just given) in the article and/or talk page.Martin451 (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. But in the article, not the talk page. Apteva (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has sufficient potential to be worth developing, not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see that this is interesting, but it's not encyclopedic content. A list of weather stations or of traffic cameras or indeed of pizza takeaways would also be interesting and useful to some people, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Many of these are incredibly small and insignificant, and the information has no lasting value. There also seems to be an element of original research in that the author has attempted to select a sample of sites, rather than having a comprehensive inclusion policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is interesting and potentially useful; room for further development. Note the stated parameters of the article: "This article ... is a representative, not an inclusive list, as there are tens of thousands of systems that could be used. The goal is to have at least one system for every region, and preferably three systems from each region, to allow comparison." This seems reasonable. Hopefully the comparative aspect can be further developed over time. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I see now this article is a vehicle for exciting new original research on solar power performance around the world. When did the encyclopedia turn into a venue for publishing new research? When did Wikipedia become a substitute for a phone book or directory? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:33, 11 April 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.