Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portlands Energy Centre
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, pending (block-compress error). Consensus to delete; proponents promised to clean it up but no one has touched it since 11 April. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Portlands Energy Centre[edit]
Despite a number of attempts to get this page changed from a campaigning anti-power plant page to a NPOV description of the project, the principal editor continues to use this to promote a POV opposed to the planned development. He describes himself as a "member of the resistance". This would be OK as a Personal Page but not as a Wikipedia article.
- Delete : Dabbler 15:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Do you read the whole entry?? I have invited other POV's to contribute to the page. I am declaring my bias for a reason. It's a work in progress. Go find some spelling mistakes somewhere and give us a chance please.
There is a signifigant number of points raised in the chronology that are neutral, and more will be added in the next couple of days, I suspect, when the proponent of the project gets to edit the page.
- Yes, I have read everything and one of the purposes of a Vote for deletion is to draw attention of other people to a page with serious problems. If the page is improved during the next week then the vote will be to keep and I will be happy about that. In its current state (and previous ones produced by you) it has been a totally non-POV Campaign page and not encyclopedic. Dabbler 21:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite to conform to NPOV; this power plant is clearly a noteworthy project, as the fact that it has attracted significant public opposition indicates. Firebug 21:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. (This is not a vote.) It might be noteworthy. If someone writes an encyclopedia article rather than a POV screed it could be kept. Otherwise we're better off deleting this and starting from scratch. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Update. The article has not improved during its time on VfD. I live in Toronto and haven't heard of the controversy, but that could be because I'm spending too much time on Wikipedia. Since nobody seems willing to write something neutral about this topic or establish why an as-yet-unbuilt natural gas power plant is notable, the article should be deleted. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment It has been a number of days since I put this up fro deletion and there has been no serious effort to improve and NPOV the page yet. Dabbler 16:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this idiotic POV mess. If it were a nuclear power plant then perhaps one could make a decent argument for keeping the article despite its POV state (think of Chernobyl). But natural gas plants are everywhere. --Coolcaesar 19:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- THe proponets have agreed to edit this page this week. PLEASE do not edit.
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.