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. Giving less weight to last two keep !votes because this article isn't an index at all. In fact, there really arn't any arguments in this discussion that are based in policy other than the nominators. I find stronger arguments for delete and am less convinced by the keep rationales. v/r - TP 02:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of electrostatic generator patents[edit]

List of electrostatic generator patents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prod contested. Indiscriminate collection of patents sharing the words "electrostatic" and "generator". No significance explained for any of this list, no unifying theme, no enduring encyclopediac value. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very useful for anyone wishing to know what patents/inventions related to this industry exist, and who invented them. Listing what year they were patented in would be helpful also to get an example of how things developed over time. This belongs in an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 08:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator Really? Which of these patents were important, and which were not? Which of these patents got turned into products selling, oh, let's say, more than $1,000,000 per year, as opposed to those patents that languished on a shelf? What is the criterion for including a patent in this list, other than mentioning "electrostatic" and "generator" somewhere in the text? I see there's at least one electrostatic *motor* on this list, which suggests a certain fogginess on the part the compiler. It's a fairly useless list; anyone who wants a list of patents with these keywords can obtain an up to date version as easily as read this list. Why does it stop in 1991? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shows the development phase. How much money each one made isn't relevant to inclusion on the list. And a list being incomplete is not a reason to destroy it. Dream Focus 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I suggest you work on this article to improve it. Perhaps you might even like to join the happy band at ARS make a hobby of such constructive endeavours? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment by nominator The correct article to work on would be Electrostatic generator. A "list of patents" is inherently un-improvable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.TR 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We absolutely should not be creating lists of patents for every conceivable invention.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking something, isn't a reason to delete it. Do you have any other reasons? Wikipedia is not paper so no limit in space. Dream Focus 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the exact same reasons pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of homopolar generator patents. The existence of a patent does not equate to notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Yaksar above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Organization, thats probobally not the respone your looking for, but look at the artical, It is a highly organized comprehensive chart of the topic, a usefull tool. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Organized and comprehensive are good qualities for a list to have. But they have absolutely nothing to do with a list article being fit for wikipedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a useful WP:SETINDEX article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to read what a set index article actually is. I know it's important to some editors that every single article is kept, but it would really be nice if you could at least make your arguments consistent with the topic being discussed. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nothamerica10000 Christian75 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator How is this article an "index" to a list of similarly-named items? Patent numbers are unique, and this is a list of patents with the words "electrostatic" and "generator" in them. I thought we weren't supposed to make list articles of random intersections? List of left-handed Newfoundlanders, anyone? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You should probably know that AfDs are not just a vote. When you simply say "per another user" it doesn't mean too much to the closing administrator, especially in this case, where the argument you are seconding is not even correct or applicable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:03, 18 October 2011 (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.