Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line: It only has one such qualified source ( this ), which is not enough unfortunately.  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] @ 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 ] Where does it say we need three sources?  Garuda3 ( talk ) 12:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks -- ‍ 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 [2] .   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.  ‍ 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.

Discussion outcome: delete