| Revision as of 01:02, 19 September 2006 editBwithh (talk | contribs)14,830 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:21, 19 September 2006 edit undoKappa (talk | contribs)36,858 edits →[]: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Comment'''. There are many articles about hydro-electric dams and their electricity generating facilities because they are notable works of engineering, because they are notable as business entities and because their construction raises environmental, farming and hunting issues. Generating stations which depend on fossil fuel are also notable because of pollution concerns. Similarly, wind farms are generally significant business entities, a source of noise, and a hazard to birds which can be killed by the blades of the turbines. And the questions of regulation and government-versus-investor ownership of electricity generation and distribution companies can be matters for significant public concern. Electricity generation is more complicated than it might seem. --] (] | ] 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. There are many articles about hydro-electric dams and their electricity generating facilities because they are notable works of engineering, because they are notable as business entities and because their construction raises environmental, farming and hunting issues. Generating stations which depend on fossil fuel are also notable because of pollution concerns. Similarly, wind farms are generally significant business entities, a source of noise, and a hazard to birds which can be killed by the blades of the turbines. And the questions of regulation and government-versus-investor ownership of electricity generation and distribution companies can be matters for significant public concern. Electricity generation is more complicated than it might seem. --] (] | ] 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **You've just given reasons for having an article on ]s, not for having an article on ''this particular'' wind farm. ] 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | **You've just given reasons for having an article on ]s, not for having an article on ''this particular'' wind farm. ] 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' or '''merge''', locally important facility and tourist attraction/eyesore. Many of the google hits are news sites using the farm to establish the notability of the company which built it. ] 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:21, 19 September 2006
Cerro Gordo Wind Farm
NN.... uh.... wind farm. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Just another small power facility Bwithh 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and User:Bwithh. JIP | Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blow away (i.e. delete) per above. MER-C 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. Power generating facilities can be notable, and this one has attracted some independent coverage. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I hardly think that a simple one line mention of the wind farm in a USAToday article or even the IBEW Journal could be considered as a real news coverage. --Nishkid64 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a tourist attraction and a major business investment in the region/state. To my mind the visibility of wind farms makes it hard for them not to be notable, and certainly in a local context it seems strange to leave it out. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Tourist attraction?? Aren't they usually considered eyesores which damage the local scenic countryside & wildlife? It's not really on the scale of a major investment either, unless Iowa is in really bad economic shape. Bwithh 01:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A power facility is a power facility, no matter how pretty or expensive it is. --InShaneee 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This fecility must have something very specific to it or unique. Otherwise it is non notable. Gtabary 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. There are many articles about hydro-electric dams and their electricity generating facilities because they are notable works of engineering, because they are notable as business entities and because their construction raises environmental, farming and hunting issues. Generating stations which depend on fossil fuel are also notable because of pollution concerns. Similarly, wind farms are generally significant business entities, a source of noise, and a hazard to birds which can be killed by the blades of the turbines. And the questions of regulation and government-versus-investor ownership of electricity generation and distribution companies can be matters for significant public concern. Electricity generation is more complicated than it might seem. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- You've just given reasons for having an article on wind farms, not for having an article on this particular wind farm. Uncle G 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge, locally important facility and tourist attraction/eyesore. Many of the google hits are news sites using the farm to establish the notability of the company which built it. Kappa 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)