Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of windmills in Guernsey

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 keep. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Guernsey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. List fails WP:LISTPURP/WP:LISTN; it's a collection of generic (WP:MILL, if you want to make a terrible pun) windmills on a minor island. There is little informational (the limits of Wikipedia require this list be more sparse in both scope and description than it would be on a specialized website, and so make nobody happy) or navigational (none of the windmills have or could have articles) value. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really disagree with this nom. I think WP:LISTN is met, since the windmills have been occasionally discussed as a set, and none of them may necessarily be notable enough for their own page (see WP:CSC) and the information is, er, informational. Just because a specialist website might contain more information is not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being on hiatus from AfD does not grant immunity to PRODs which are supposed to be uncontroversial. The page is reasonably well-sourced and the topic seems quite reasonable and respectable. As for WP:MILL, it's an essay and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". See also the Mills of God. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would note it is eminently counterproductive to your goals to inspire an inclusionist to come back to AfD with the goal of deleting articles. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per SportingFlyer WP:LISTN is satisfied. Hulatam (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's a sub-list of the List of windmills, per WP:LSC. Of the mills in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Vale Mill and Sark Windmill may just be notable enough to sustain articles, but it would be hard work getting either above start class. The subject is notable enough to sustain a list, per WP:LISTN. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A well sourced and valuable resource. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a list this doesn't meet LISTN in its current state, but given the subject and the number of books written about windmills, and the sources in the article, I think this could be expanded beyond a simple list. Since these are historical structures, there are probably a number of notable articles which means this could be the SUMMARY article for the subject and the list would meet CLN. // Timothy :: talk 20:38, 10 March 2021 (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.