- 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 generating stations in Ontario. While I feel that the consensus is "delete" here, the merge by User:Natural RX means that we can't actually get rid of the article, as we need to retain the history. Therefore, I've redirected instead. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wesleyville Generating Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a non-notable planned building that was never built to completion and that never did anything: a dead project that amounted to nothing. The mention-in-passing of a chimney is not worthy of encyclopaedic entry and, in any case, is not even of record height. It would not be included in the Guinness Book of Records. — O'Dea (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - the fact that it was planned but never completed doesn't mean its not notable. Likewise, the fact that what was built wouldn't qualify for the Guinness Book of Records also doesn't mean its not notable. Like everything else, the question of notability comes down to whether or not we have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. In this case, there's coverage not only of the white elephant that exists today but of other proposals (like that for a nuclear power station) on the same site. One imagines there would be quite a bit of off-line coverage in newspapers from the 1970s. That said, most of what I could find was local coverage (likely because anyone from outside the area long ago stopped caring about it enough to cover it). The result is that most modern online coverage is from a handful of local papers. St★lwart111 00:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe it needs to be pointed out that no nuclear power station exists there, so you are talking about something that does not exist. And coverage in the past was of something that was going to be a working entity, but it never amounted to that. Intentions don't cut it. — O'Dea (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of planned projects are covered on Wikipedia. Again, the fact that it was planned but never completed doesn't automatically qualify it for deletion. Coverage of planned nuclear power stations would still be coverage. Intentions can cut it and are often notable - the Planned French invasion of Britain (1759), the Staten Island Tunnel, and the Irish Sea fixed crossing. Note: I still think this should be deleted, I just don't think it should be deleted because it wasn't finished. Plenty of things that don't exist are notable. St★lwart111 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, the fact that it was not fully built does not mean it was not notable. Furthermore it still exists today. This article can be included in my (weak) attempt to create more robust entry on all Wikipedia articles listed in {{Fossil fuel power ON}}. This article in particular was not listed in a previous version, but it has now been added. I would only support deleting it if it and other articles could be included in a list; but that would be a future scenario, so I would keep it for now, it is a legitimate enough stub. --Natural RX 20:04, 15 July 2014 (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.
