Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restructuring of power sytem

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 Delete per consensus. Draftify not adequately supported. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring of power sytem

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

No references, no evidence of any potential notability. Written like a POV essay. Fails every test for notability. PRODed but PROD removed by author Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Velella's explanation. Prmcd16 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. Creator states on his talk page that this is "an assignment that does not complete unless this is done ." --Finngall ^talk 23:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Draft:Restructuring of power system ~~Delete~~ [changed per Ricky81682's comment, below]. In addition to the reasons given above, the typo in the title appears to be an attempt to avoid the redirect at the properly named Restructuring of power system. Doesn't this qualify it for some sort of speedy delete? As an aside: this appears to be class-related, but I have no idea how to contact the teaching-powers-that-be at Wikipedia. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've left a note at WP:ENI, in case those folks can help the student along. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Finngall. Wikipedia is not a hosting site for class assignments or essays. GAB^Hello! 23:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Draft:Restructuring of power system. The topic itself could be notable, there's possibly sources on it and I'd say let the editor have at least a chance to get it going. If it's actually an assignment, it was very poorly designed. While it doesn't need to have an AFC tag, we have been pretty good about checking and watching for old drafts so if this doesn't go anywhere in a few months, it can come up at MFD. The best case is that the editor learn a little more about sourcing requirements and rather than a separate article, we have a draft that can be incorporated into Electric_power_industry#Organization or somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor indicated here that this is an assignment of sorts. Given that, it's likely the editor will just create this in their userspace or elsewhere anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research editor opinion on a current affairs topic. Material must be based on sources, not editorial essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like a short school essay; uncited "draft". Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no Draft unless actually needed as none of this is keeping material. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. We have lots of energy articles that could link into this, e.g., energy policy, energy generation, etc. What we have here is a short essay, not even a stub. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2016 (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.