Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of wind turbines in Denmark

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 all except List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. There is a firm consensus to delete the decade-based articles, with only two editors arguing to retain them. The argument that these lists fail WP:NOTDIR by listing extensive entries of non-notable turbines is strong and compels deletion in the face of the lack of any particularly strong arguments to the contrary. Mkativerata (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of wind turbines in Denmark

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

Nomination includes List of wind turbines in Denmark (1978-1989), List of wind turbines in Denmark (1990-1999), List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009), ~~List of offshore wind farms in Denmark~~ and List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019).

All of the above articles contain little more than tables of all of the wind farm locations in Denmark. It hardly seems encyclopaedic, the individual turbines are not notable and it seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of offshore wind farms in Denmark is certainly not a subject for deletion, as it conforms with Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Common_selection_criteria : Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group TGCP (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Stand-alone lists of windmills are a suitable topic for Wikipedia. How are these lists different from List of windmills in Denmark or any other List of windmills? The keeping of modern wind turbines and traditional windmills apart is a valid separation. There may be scope to merge the onshore lists into one list, but that issue should be dealt with elsewhere. WP:MILLS and WP:DENMARK notified. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those historic windmills are notable in their own right. None of these seem to be individually notable, and listing them off serves no encyclopaedic purpose as far as I can see. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. It's encyclopaedic, easy to maintain, and provides valuable information. Disclosure - I have contributed to this page's content myself. I don't feel any ownership towards it, but ISTM that it meets all the criteria for being an appropriate article for Wikipedia Ernestfax^Talk 08:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I was tempted to AFD this long list myself initially, there is structure to the list and simply splitting it by farm would make it more obviously interesting (while making other parts of the information less obvious). It would be nice to see someone clever making little wind-farm maps automatically from the co-ords. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- List of offshore wind farms in Denmark -- aligns with all manner of WP criteria -- shouldn't be lumped with the other articles
Delete -- the lists of individual turbines.
I can see a point in listing wind farms, even (for completeness) where such 'farms' contain just one turbine, but I don't think the lists of turbines are appropriate on WP. Isn't this information available elsewhere online? (We would not tolerate lists of signals on railway systems, or lists of electrical substations, any more than we tolerate articles on individual bus stops.)

EdJogg (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Danish Energy Agency stores such a register of individual turbines, online. I have no view as to whether or not these wikipedia lists of individual turbines should be kept or not. Ernestfax^Talk 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the articles again, I think you're right about the List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. That list is concise, and the wind farms actually are notable in their own right. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It takes a big spirit to admit to being wrong, so kudos to you for doing so Ernestfax^Talk 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also, List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019) probably needs to be considered separately, since would violate WP:CRYSTAL if it had any content. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI, several turbines have been inaugurated this year (at Rødsand II aka Nysted II), and this year is within that page's timeframe of 2010-2019. So I don't think WP:CRYSTAL does apply (unless anyone adds turbines this year, that they claim will be inaugurated next year, say Ernestfax^Talk 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is generally agreed that the offshore list is valid, then surely there is also scope for an onshore list too. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they are of the same form. A list of (notable) on-shore wind farms must be acceptable if the off-shore list is OK. The lists under review are NOT of the same form. 99.9999% of individual wind turbines will not be sufficiently notable to have their own article, but the farms where they gather probably could be notable. The lists don't even provide a wikilink to the nearest settlement, the name of the windfarm, or the type/manufacturer of the turbine, they are just lists of things at coordinates: for example, the first twenty rows of List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009) are identical, apart from the coordinates. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn List of offshore wind farms in Denmark as nominator and since those snowflakes started falling. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 13:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For comparison, see List of wind turbines. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not using it as an argument for keeping.LadyofShalott 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is slightly different in that each row entry indicates a different type of turbine. The article name is hence probably inaccurate, by-the-way! -- EdJogg (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. LadyofShalott 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not the best way to present the data. It may be the easiest (dumping a spreadsheet into wikipedia) but it results in articles which are impossible to use or understand. For example, the coordinates give no indication of ___location (no map or link to map sources), are they offshore/onshore? are they in a wind farm/on their own? how many in a given wind farm? are they still in use? The spreadsheet linked does is a much better format for this sort of data, and we don't have to worry about updating it!

List of offshore wind farms in Denmark is great, understandable, and is an excellent entry point to the topic. It also references the spreadsheets, so the information is there if people are interested. Additionally almost all the offshore windfarms have their own article, which again is great and understandable - the relevant information from the spreadsheets should be added to these articles in an understandable way (for example we could use the data to make graphs of the power output for each wind farm). Again the spreadsheets can be linked in a prominant way, heck even mention them and link them in the introduction if you want. The next step would be to create List of onshore wind farms in Denmark - which can be the sister article of List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. That way every wind farm in Denmark can be listed and therefore every wind turbine in Denmark is in effect included in wikipedia. Schematically:

Wind power in Denmark -> List of offshore wind farms in Denmark or List of onshore wind farms in Denmark -> Article for individual wind farm -> Listing of information about the wind turbines on the articles for each wind farm.

With List of offshore wind farms in Denmark and List of onshore wind farms in Denmark, the data would be used in an understandable way, in articles people will be reading, surrounded by text to help explain the information. Is this more work? Probably, yes. But would it result in far more interesting information? Undoubtably, yes. Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. These lists are borderline copyvios of the spreadsheets they were copied out of. Also, per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists. These lists consist entirely of non-notable elements. Wind turbines are extremely ubiquitous, and they are not notable structures by default. This has equivalent notability to List of cell phone towers in Denmark. SnottyWong ^comment 23:14, 3 December 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.