Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whisson Windmill

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. Keeper | 76 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisson Windmill

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

Very few incoming wiki links, malformed reference, notability not established. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by Grundle2600 (talk · contribs), who was banned in 2010 for making hoax edits. The "windmill" is mentioned on howstuffworks.com; that article seems to have been written in 2011, but the Wikipedia article was created in 2009, so we appear to be dealing with a case of the Seigenthaler effect. Per the nominator, I would delete, and I see a case for speedy deletion. AGK [•] 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I managed to find one substantive mention in a publication that wasn't a simple mirror of the article - Opportunities Beyond Carbon by John O'Brien (Melbourne Univ. Publishing, 2009) - though I'm not sure if that small section is based on the article or not. Either way, one single source would not be enough to substantiate notability, in my view. Stalwart111 23:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The windmill is verifiably not a hoax. I found this opinion piece in The Australian. As an opinion piece, it is not useful to establish notability, but it does verify the devices existence. Coverage in reliable sources do exist in the form of IOL, ABC (Australia), and a blog entry from The Age. However, all of this is from 2007, with no onging coverage outside of this blip in 2007. With sustained coverage, I would switch to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 11 March 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.