Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Electric Circuit


 * 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 merge to Hydro-Québec. Clear consensus for merge, even factoring in the changes to the article. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Electric Circuit

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article, relying entirely on primary source content self-published by the parent corporation rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media, about a network of electric vehicle charging posts. As always, every company (or subsidiary of a company) is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists: the basis for an article about this would not be the company's own web presence metaverifying its own existence, but media paying independent attention to it by doing journalism about it to get it over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: How do we feel about the improved version? Is it enough to call it Heymann'd?
 * Merge and redirect to Hydro-Québec, the parent company/operator as a mention-worthy subsidary. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hydro-Québec as this doesn't merit its own page. InsuranceLovers(talk) 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as discussed. It should be more notable, but it isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject is noteworthy, the French language version has plenty of content with the media sources. I will make time to bring this over. Bdewater (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The new sources added by Bdewater do demonstrate it has independent coverage in the media. It's a common problem here, to think notable articles are not because the sources are not available in English. Tercer (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep because of the improvement. It no longer relies on primary source content as the original argument argued.--User:Namiba 14:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hydro-Québec. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as they rely on PR/Announcements, quotations/interviews with company personnel and/or information provided by the organization or their partners. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge only properly sourced content into Hydro-Québec per HighKing above. Doesn't meet guidelines for a stand alone article, but there is a good target for a merge, both the content and the target article will be improved by a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  03:52, 17 February 2021 (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.