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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus confirms the company's notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clipper Windpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP ScienceApologist (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An article doesn't fail WP:CORP just because it was written by User:Johnfos. There's plenty to work with, and the article already cites some refs. Zagalejo^^^ 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable company with notable developmental project. DGG (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and develop. Good refs and an important subject: windpower. This company is notable.Marcia Wright (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with all of the above. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as well stated above. rkmlai (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has references from several reliable sources, including what appear to be major publications. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (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.