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. without prejudice to a merge to List of power stations in Australia. That can be decided on talk page. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind farms in Australia[edit]

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

This page duplicates all entries in List of power stations in Australia (see relevant links/sections within link). I propose deletion or redirection of the article. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles duplicates all entries of the List of power stations in Australia article (see relevant links/sections within link) as well as duplicating the already-duplicated List of wind farms in Australia article (main article for deletion):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is limited duplication and I would suggest that the "List of power station..." articles be trimmed to include only operating wind farms, which will focus those articles and keep them manageable. Wind farms are highly notable and the wind farm lists will expand a lot over time, and having separate wind farm lists at the state level will accommodate this. Having these separate wind farm lists also means that more precise categorization can be used, and this is helpful to readers. Johnfos (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As per nomination. Comment to above: Very few such articles exist, making such a list not that prone to be accessed by a reader. Aside that, the contents are small enough to be moved into the parent article (as a matter of fact, its already moved. These articles are just duplicates); increasing the chances of being noticed by both readers and editors, thus increasing improvement. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles are not just duplicates. For example, this material from List of wind farms in New South Wales does not appear in List of power stations in New South Wales:

The wind resource potential in NSW is very good, yet this potential has remained largely untapped. As of 2008, in the State only 17 MW of wind capacity is operational.^ref However, Australia's largest wind farm, the Silverton Wind Farm, is proposed for western NSW.

A NSW Wind Atlas has been prepared and this shows that many of the sites with good potential for wind farms are situated on the western side of the Great Dividing Range. While the wind is also strong in coastal areas, wind farms are unlikely to be built there due to existing residential development and national park areas. NSW also has an extensive electricity transmission network, providing relatively good power grid access for new wind farms.

Moreover, the nominator is "voting" in his own AfD; I don't think I've ever seen this happen before, and it smacks of a deletionist nominator who is trying to build up a series of "List of power station" articles at the expense of "List of wind farm" articles which have been around for a long time. There is room for both, with the wind farm lists providing more detail about wind farms than appears in the power station articles. It is this approach which will be most helpful to readers. And I say again that the power station lists should cover only operating power stations, not proposed ones, or else things will become very confused. Johnfos (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnfos. Johnfos raised a good point about why nominator trying to make his voice count twice in the same AfD. It seems like a person trying to vote twice. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No offense, but it was not meant to be a double-vote. I was simply declining to the comment and proposing a redirect. But i do now very well notice that it does look as such. I completely accept my wrong in that. But, keeping that aside, i dont see why that would effect your decision on the vote. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rehman: On the strength of what has happened at this AfD and several others, (eg., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest hydroelectric power stations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Sweden), it would appear that you are pushing a deletionist agenda with respect to many renewable energy lists on Wikipedia. Please stop. Johnfos (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment make me want to tell three things. First, take a good look at WP:OWN; i now believe which is why you oppose to every change to a page that you created/controlled. Second, nominating three different articles for deletion doesnt make me a deletionist; i have actually created much more, of which you simply call crappy. Dropping all of these to one side, lets not make this about me, or about other articles, as you have done now and before. Now i am, peacefully than ever, backing off from you, hoping to not have any other unnecessary argument. Lets just, peacefully, work on what we are here for. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification. Since 29 January, Rehman has placed deletion templates on at least eight renewable energy articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Rehman also placed merge tags on two more renewable energy articles: [9] [10] There simply is no need for all of this. Please stop. regards, Johnfos (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN#Examples of ownership behavior.

Stopping further responses to avoid any more possible unnecessary non-related argument. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really was hoping not to have to bring all this up. But when I saw Rehman take List of largest hydroelectric power stations to AfD yesterday (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest hydroelectric power stations) I knew something had to be said. (As far as I'm aware I have never edited "List of largest hydroelectric power stations" and have not participated in the AfD, so ownership is not an issue.)

AfD is a last resort, usually after there has been a lot of discussion about what the options are for an article. Even if that discussion reaches no consensus that still doesn't automatically mean that the article should go to AfD.

As for the merges that Rehman proposed both have been resolved now, with the help of other editors, and the articles are not to be merged. Johnfos (talk) 02:52, 5 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.