Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lerwick Energy Recovery Plant and District Heating

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 Lerwick Power Station. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lerwick Energy Recovery Plant and District Heating

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

Non-notable utility; does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGSIG. Info can conceivably go on Lerwick Power Station article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The energy recovery plant, and the district heating scheme are nothing to do whatsoever with the Lerwick power stations, so there is no reason to put the information there. The DH is notabnle because it a rare, in the UK example of a district heating scheme being added to an existing town.

Also unique, the energy recovery plant was built specifically to heat the DH - can you show any other scheme in the UK where this is done?

Engineman, can you please sign your posts? You enter four tildes: ~~~~ Thank you. As for your claims of notability above... first, I think that info is dubious to establish enough notability for its own article. Not every factoid about first or thing built for a difference purpose makes something inherently notable enough for its own article. You could mention that bit of trivia in the article about Lerwick. Second, not only have you not included any reliable sources to support your claims of notability.... none of these claims of notability are even mentioned in the article. You created an article with five brief sentences and no sources, did not include any of the information that you think makes it notable, and this was three months ago; you have not gone back to improve the article since so it seems the article is to your satisfaction. You've been on Wikipedia so long that I'm really mystified; as you also created the Three legged chair or table article in all seriousness, I don't know how I can be of assistance except to politely suggest you should review Wikipedia:Tutorial thoroughly and consider using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to get help in creating articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2015 (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.