Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Sweden

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 redirect to List of power stations in Sweden. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind farms in Sweden[edit]

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

This list duplicates data from List of power stations in Sweden. I propose a deletion or redirection of the article. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. 2 says you, says two 21:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, which is very useful in that it divides operational wind farms from future wind farms, and include only the operational wind farms in the List of power stations in Sweden, to keep that article focused and manageable. Johnfos (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Nice to have all on a parent page. It helps development and popularity. 119.235.2.185 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can see, the nominator previously moved&widened the "list of wind farms" into a "list of power stations", and subsequently Johnfos restored the previous list from the redirect. So the AfD is basically about going back to the redirect or having the recreated article in parallel to the "list of power stations". From a WP:SWEDEN perspective I could in principle live with both options, provided that the "list of wind farms" has anything additional to add. So for now it's neutral for me. However, this seems like an issue where it's good to have some consistency across "in country X" articles, and the nomination doesn't make it clear to me if it's "delete" or "keep" that would contribute to such consistency. So I'd be happy to hear some input from those who edit energy/power generation/wind power articles. Tomas e (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Am not that smart in these history stuff, but thee histry looks like it were an redirect before. So better that way. 119.235.14.154 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a plausible search term, and link redirect is easy. This is a duplicate page creation. No need for a fork (the original page isn't all that big). Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My first though is that the list of hydrostations is far too short. I have come across (i.e. just randomly driven past) several hydro power stations in Sweden (mostly in Jämtland) and I am certain that parts of Sweden as a considerable hydro power production. Also, the article up for discussion has a "future" section which would have to be incorporated into the main list, should a delete go through. If all power stations of all three types, plus biomass stations and future stations are added, the main list is beginning to get rather long, and a content split seems reasonable to me. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're understanding the discussion above. This content is largely copied. The relevant question ins not whether or not it's useful, but whether or not it warrants a separate article. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional redirect For not i think re-direct, but, If the windmills article is redeveloped in having more of an introduction section that it can act as a stand alone Im inclined to sway towards keeping. Until this occurs I find that its just fine where it is in list of power stations. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2010 (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.