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. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium Power Wind 2

[edit]

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

Seems to lack notability and reliable third party coverage. Weak delete from me (for now). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too speculative and promotional in tone. Trillium Power Wind 1 is the notable project which has received third party coverage, but Trillium Power Wind 2 has not. Johnfos (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful information into Trillium Power Wind 1 as a separate section. Beagel (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there is a place for some articles on proposed nearshore windfarms since some (e.g. Cape Wind) have become major news items as environmental impact, "visual impact" to shore areas, bird kills, etc. have become controversial issues. Having said that, there is nothing in this article that would indicate Trillium Power Wind 2 has generated any such controversy. So deletion is the proper course for now; the article can be reconstituted when this is under construction or if it becomes controversial at a later date. N2e (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2009 (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.