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.
@
Garuda3 I don't think it's enough. It still makes the notability point weak. The transmission line is just one ordinary transmission line that is like all transmission lines here in the Philippines. Much of the article is also
original research, with the editors' claims of steel pole details relatively based on what they heard or seen in person. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article of an obviously unnotable transmission line lacks at least 3 or more reliable secondary sources that are
independent of the subject itself. It only has one such qualified source (
this), which is not enough unfortunately. It mostly contains primary sources (information that came from
National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) and
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)).
Ervin111899 (
talk)
06:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks --
â Shonyx
Delete. I see only one, brief, source that supports notability.
WP:GNG says "reliable sources", plural, which generally excludes topics with only one good source, even a very good source much more in depth than
[1]. While three sources are usually preferred, I, and I think many other wikipedians, would be okay with two provided they are fully independent and provide sufficient depth of coverage to base an article on them.
Eluchil404 (
talk)
01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
⢠Confirming delete by the contributor: Otherwise, the article has only single source that only supports notability. At such older
WP:AFD requests, like
this one, has no clearer consensus. To all
Philippine contributors that contributes local transmission line articles, add more or reduce the number of
references from respective, couraged, affiliated and notable owners. Since
NGCP has no notability supporting documents due to privacy and confidential issues, use the alternative, notable sources from affiliated companies who constructed this line. I am not agree that this page will delete.
WP:GNG said that "reliable sources, plural" means that the affiliated sources are only used in this page. Basic references is nothing in this article.
â Shonyx 10:52, 23 March 2024 (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.
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.
@
Garuda3 I don't think it's enough. It still makes the notability point weak. The transmission line is just one ordinary transmission line that is like all transmission lines here in the Philippines. Much of the article is also
original research, with the editors' claims of steel pole details relatively based on what they heard or seen in person. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article of an obviously unnotable transmission line lacks at least 3 or more reliable secondary sources that are
independent of the subject itself. It only has one such qualified source (
this), which is not enough unfortunately. It mostly contains primary sources (information that came from
National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) and
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)).
Ervin111899 (
talk)
06:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks --
â Shonyx
Delete. I see only one, brief, source that supports notability.
WP:GNG says "reliable sources", plural, which generally excludes topics with only one good source, even a very good source much more in depth than
[1]. While three sources are usually preferred, I, and I think many other wikipedians, would be okay with two provided they are fully independent and provide sufficient depth of coverage to base an article on them.
Eluchil404 (
talk)
01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
⢠Confirming delete by the contributor: Otherwise, the article has only single source that only supports notability. At such older
WP:AFD requests, like
this one, has no clearer consensus. To all
Philippine contributors that contributes local transmission line articles, add more or reduce the number of
references from respective, couraged, affiliated and notable owners. Since
NGCP has no notability supporting documents due to privacy and confidential issues, use the alternative, notable sources from affiliated companies who constructed this line. I am not agree that this page will delete.
WP:GNG said that "reliable sources, plural" means that the affiliated sources are only used in this page. Basic references is nothing in this article.
â Shonyx 10:52, 23 March 2024 (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.