Another instance - there's a fellow not too far from here that has an old 8 foot Aeromotor windmill and he rigged up a bunch of roller chains and jackshafts and he drives a 200 amp Leece-Neville truck alternator with it. I have seen that thing put out 100 amps continuous at 14.5 volts in a good stiff wind and it makes 60-70 amps without even breathing hard. With just a 8 foot rotor on an old 40 foot windmill tower turning at not more than about 200 rpm.
If by a "good stiff wind" you mean ~50 mph, then these numbers make sense.
Another illustration on torque vs speed - you can take a Freightliner powered by an N14 Cummins that makes 525 horsepower and 1,970 lb-ft of torque @ 1,200 rpm, and climb a hill with that truck with the rig grossing 80,000 lbs with no problem. Now, pull the Cummins out and replace it with a 600 hp small block Chevy dirt track engine, change the gearing so the engine can run at 7,000 rpm, and try to climb that same hill with it. The small block will run out of steam less than 1/4 of the way up the hill.
I think what you intended to convey requires at least a few unspoken assumptions. The example as it stands is not correct. Yes, torque is work. Power is the rate of doing work. If you could get up to speed, the chevy would pull the load fine since at peak, it can actually do work faster than the Cummins. The problem is the fact that the Chevy would have trouble getting up to speed for the lack of torque in the low rpm range (an rpm range that cannot be avoided since you have begin from a standing start). Gearing multiplies torque. If you could gear down the Chevy enough, you'd have more than enough torque at the wheels, and enough horsepower as well, to pull this load. Therein lies the rub... such a gear ratio would not be practical to build and maintain within the confines of an ordinary transmission. In that light, your example is good in that it illustrates the tradeoffs that one must consider. One *could* build a chevy-based tractor towing solution with crazy amounts of gearing. But why bother when you can just spec a high torque monster engine and gear more normally?
Wind doesn't carry torque and wind doesn't carry power. It carries energy. The turbine is a transducer that converts that energy from one form into another. Some of the energy stored in the wind may be used to do work on the turbine and vice versa. That is, the wind does work on the blades (makes them spin) and the blades do work on the wind (slows it down). Since the blades are spinning, the work done on them is converted into a torque at the shaft. So, let's keep in mind that we are interested in making power, and that power is the rate of doing work (i.e. the rate of applying torque). As you've noted, Power = k*torque*rpm, where k=1/5252. So, power is proportional to BOTH torque and rpm. Said another way, for a given power there is a linear relationship between them. You can increase torque and and decrease rpm proportionally and still have the same power (or vice versa).
Thus, it is axiomatic that neither is more important that the other. As with the truck example, the choice of building the turbine for torque vs speed involves weighing the various tradeoffs. On balance, I tend to think the simpler, high speed, low torque solution is best.
