Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuirial Hydro Electric Project

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 no consensus‎. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuirial Hydro Electric Project

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

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

Should delete due to a lack of significant coverage and reliable sources, which could indicate that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, if the content is deemed to be too promotional or lacking in verifiable information Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for an article as it passes WP:GNG. It is clear that WP:BEFORE was not conducted before putting up this article for deletion. Sources are available[1][2][3][4]. Piscili (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I am pretty much meh regarding the state of the article. It is not promotional, but it is not really anything at all! Not a huge facility, but it exists and the size (60MW) is large enough to attract notice. It has coverage in some sources as above, it is a visible feature in the locality. Needs improvement, not deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 sources on the page. One is a permanent deadlink and the other does not even have a passing mention. So there are no sources, no secondary independent sources, no significant coverage. This page fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. If sources exist with significant coverage in secondary independent sources that is not just an entry or passing mention or trivia news, I would reconsider my vote. This project is owned by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited per source so why need to have separate page. If reliable secondary sources exist, some of the content can be Merged to the owner company but the other problem is that the owner company has 2 sources with deadlinks. So no sources there either and owner company can be AFDed too. I am going to have stay on delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NBUILD, this is infrastructure, and so it needs to meet GNG not NCORP. If it were under NCORP, I'd agree it should go. But also, if going by the project owner, that would be a case for a redirect I think. NBUILD suggests a redirect is normal for non notable infrastructure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But redirect to owner company North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited that has no sources, would not be right. If owner company had significant coverage and secondary independent reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP, I would gave reconsidered redirect to it. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 16 October 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.