Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budhiganga Hydropower 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. References added (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Budhiganga Hydropower 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)

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : It would be of much help if Afd is tagged with proper subtags, i.e. which part of WP:GNG or WP:ORG are you referring to, else it becomes guesswork to understand.nirmal (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the one who created this article. The project is a government owned and constructed project, so most of the information is directly from WP:PRIMARY. I have added some WP:SECONDARY now.nirmal (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Apologizes for not being more specific.

Per WP:GNG

Independent of the subject - only The Himalayan Times is independent of the subject

Reliable Sources should be secondary sources and "multiple sources are generally expected". only one ref The Himalayan Times meets the RS secondary source criteria.

Significant coverage - "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - The Himalayan Times only has a passing mention, no significant coverage.

None of the sources supports notability.

Per WP:ORGCRITE within WP:ORG - "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

None of the sources meet these criteria.

Basically the article needs two or more reliable sources that are independent from people/orgs associated with the project that provides significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail to establish notability. I'm happy to change my vote to keep if there are sources that meet the notability criteria. Perhaps this is a situation where WP:TOOSOON applies. // Timothy :: talk 03:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added. nirmal (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn. References added. Thanks // Timothy :: talk 15:54, 26 July 2020 (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.