Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line (2nd nomination)

Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line
• Articles for deletion/Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per precedent at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Hermosa Transmission Line: 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. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comment by nominator: it appears I have already nominated this way back 2021, yet there has been no substantial sourcing improvements. A single citation to the Philippine Star helps, but is not sufficient to keep this article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This nomination seems based on a false premise that we need three WP:GNG sources. One quality source is enough. Garuda3 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

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)

Where does it say we need three sources? Garuda3 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new topic here to get clearer consensus -- ‍ 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)