Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TE Rijeka


 * 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

TE Rijeka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no indication of notability [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. WikiProject Energy doesn't seem to have its own notability guideline, but a 300MW power plant, with a 250m high chimney, seems inherently notable, comparable to smaller gazetteer entries (WP:5). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems like a big enough power station for inclusion in Wikipedia. It produces a similar sort of power-output to various other power stations that already have articles, and the subject is encyclopedic. Sadly, I can't make a properly policy-based argument, as there isn't really one that I can think of. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appears to be a major power station. Still, when considering the WP:GNG criteria, the article is on the thin side to say the least. Even the primary source (hep.hr, which does not count towards WP:GNG) is fairly terse (i.e. arguably is not really "significant coverage"). GregorB (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - A 320 MW plant has inherent notability. It would be impossible for such a project to exist without extensive government research, proposals, outlines, studies and progress and output reports, all of which would demonstrate passing WP:GNG.  Sources are most likely in the Serbo-Croatian language.  An equivalent station in English-speaking world, say Portishead power station, wouldn't even be considered for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)  Addtionally, as stated below, modern coverage easily found.  --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as inherent notability. As the policy says, notability requires verifiable evidence. This article has sat around for several years now without anyone adding substantial, verifiable evidence that it is notable. If you believe it's notable, find some and add some references. I wasn't able to find any. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 04:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is. It's been established by WP standards long ago topics like population centers, heads of states and many others have inherent notability.  As for the article having "sat around", there's no hurry for any notable topic.  As I said, the sources are there, just not easily available to English speakers on the internet.  With something like a major power station, you'd have to prove to me sources don't exist, which of course I wouldn't believe. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is the presumption of notability for such people/places, but no inherent notability. there's a difference. The time thing can always go either way. you can argue that there's no hurry, i can argue that there's been quite enough time for people to fill in references, so there is the presumption that none exist.
 * If you think it's notable, find some sources. Otherwise it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 05:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it's inherent notability. But okay, term it presumption of notability with a power station of this scale.  Absolute impossibility for such a power station to exist without extensive government research, proposals, outlines, studies and progress and output reports and thus passing WP:GNG.  I will never be convinced otherwise.--Oakshade (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an argument to take to the notability noticeboard for clarification. but those would also not be independent sources, so would not qualify to establish WP:GNG, as I interpret it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 06:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not need to take the argument as these standards have long been accepted. Breaking out the government sources don't count argument is just drawing at game playing straws as every source in Communist Yugoslavia in the 1970s was a government source. WP:GNG even specifically states "reports by government agencies" as examples of acceptable coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * this seems to me very much like a personal attack, the assertion that i am "playing games". I did not find sources, could not establish notability, and you have made statements in direct opposition to WP policies that I have attempted to clarify. let's leave it at that, and let other people comment. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 06:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Never did I make statements "in direct opposition to WP policies". I'm going by WP:GNG.  Per WP:GNG, outside of WP:BLP issues, it requires the existence of secondary sources, not the sources be seen in the article.  I'm positive they exist as its impossible for them not to exist.  It turns out other kinds of sources are easily available online per my comment below. --Oakshade (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And what do you know? Modern very in-depth sources on this power plant. .  There are many more. --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade, these sources are quite sufficient for WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.