Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andheri West metro station

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_ Feel free to have discussions on Redirecting individual stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andheri West metro station

[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)

Fails GNG just like this and this. The article doesn't provide any useful information apart from the ones duplicated in every Mumbai Metro station article. Every article I listed below is identical if they belong to the same metro line(except the title), no individual SIGCOV can be found.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their similarity:

Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect any that cannot be expanded to either Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations or List of Namma Metro stations (I have a very slight preference for the former but am happy with either target). While there appears to be little information available at the moment (I've only looked at a couple) they are all highly plausible search terms and so should redirect to the information we do have in one of the aforementioned articles until such time as they can be expanded. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thryduulf and @Timothytyy,

The metro stations "Benniganahalli" and "Challeghatta" are getting ready and are set to become operational in the third week of September. I request you to consider "undeletion" only for those 2 wikipages. More information are to be added when nearing the operational dates. Hope to see some good response from your side. Thank You, Sameer Kumar. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guarantee that individual SIGCOV will be provided to those two stations? Because even operational stations don't have individual coverage according to my research. As every article contains similar information, it would be a nice choice to add the information to the metro line's article. That would be more organized while it does pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee that individual SIGVOC will be provided. Sorry for the late response since I just checked your reply to my blog. Pls give me 2 weeks time and I'll get the required information. Sameer2905 (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thryduulf and @Timothytyy,

I hope the SIGCOV provided is useful for those stations. Please let me know if any changes to be made and hoping to get the response from your side. Thank you. Sameer2905 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided do not provide individual SIGCOV. For example, the sources you provided in Benniganahalli metro station are just coverage about the line, not the station. Check Cockfosters tube station for an idea about individual SIGCOV. Timothytyy (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can prove the GNG and SIGCOV for some of the articles from Pune Metro listed in here. Other pages can be reinstated to their previous redirects which existed before expanding them. I'll notify here once I'm done with the updates. Just one question - after redirecting the pages, would it be possible to restore the expanded versions in the future when SIGCOV is available? Let me know about it DesiBoy101 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course restoring is possible, but remember SIGCOV requires independent, detailed coverage from non-subject-affiliated reliable sources. Timothytyy (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've added my comments in the list above after updating the articles from Pune Metro. Request you to take a look and take the suggested action accordingly. Regards - DesiBoy101 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Timothytyy, pinging for your attention. It would be nice if Pune Metro articles are delisted from this AfD soon as per suggestions above. DesiBoy101 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am the nominator so I cannot close the discussion. Also for the expansions some articles are still failing GNG, e.g. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Udyan. The sources you added still doesn't provide significant coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If editors want these article redirected, you need to list each article and its redirect target article. The closer can't guess what you are thinking. Without supplying specific target articles for each article listed, this likely will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion, I propose the following:
- Redirect Benniganahalli metro station, Challaghatta metro station to Purple Line (Namma Metro)
- Redirect Bopodi metro station, Dapodi metro station to Purple Line (Pune Metro)
- Redirect Lower Malad metro station, Lower Oshiwara metro station, Malad West metro station, Oshiwara metro station and Valnai metro station to Line 2 (Mumbai Metro)
- Redirect Mangalwar Peth metro station, Ruby Hall Clinic metro station to Aqua Line (Pune Metro)
- Keep PMC Bhavan metro station and Shivaji Nagar metro station (Pune)
- Need consensus on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Udyan metro station and Deccan Gymkhana metro station about whether source 3 contributes to GNG
- Merge Pune Railway Station metro station into Pune Junction railway station

Any objections? Timothytyy (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. As evident from Timothy's latest comments, each station is its own case and deserves a serious discussion. Rather than a bulk nomination, perhaps nominate one station where you believe that you might have a case? gidonb (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Tube stations in other parts of the world have articles on them (e.g. Oxford Circus tube station), so I do not see why Indian tube stations are automatically non-notable. What does not help are editors who think that "only now counts" and delete citations to events like stations opening, etc. Over time it will be possible for articles on Indian tube stations to grow. Destroying the "seed corn" articles prevents this from happening.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Information available about the stations will continue to grow as the time progresses and thus help in article improvement. - DesiBoy101 (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Invalid comment. You cannot assume notability of one article by comparing it with other articles; after all, Tube stations have a long history and there is sufficient SIGCOV; however, no individual coverage is provided for Indian metro stations, at least according to my research. @Gidonb, as you can see, most articles can be redirected, only some need further consensus and some have been improved, so I don't see why "each station is its own case and deserves a serious discussion". To me they are all very similar (except the two articles which have been expanded after my nomination). The merge is equivalent to a redirection. The difference in redirection target doesn't mean that there should be separate discussions, as all targets are similar in nature. Timothytyy (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we can go out with a broad brush and claim that metro stations in different cities and even states resemble each other, just because all are in India. Each station would need to be discussed on its own merrits (i.e. the existence of sources per WP:NEXIST, NOT the current state of sourcing) and I will warn upfront that I am going to be lenient with sources as we have a MAJOR problem with equity in coverage between developed and developing nations, alongside a real problem with sources in developing nations. That said, I would like to be constructive. YOUR BEST CASE here is to merge Pune Railway Station metro station into Pune Junction railway station. I'm happy to get behind that! gidonb (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, the articles about Chinese stations created by me also got redirected because few Chinese sources are defined as reliable (e.g. WeChat and Sina are the major news sources, but unfortunately they aren't reliable). Frustrations aside, I still need to uphold the guidelines. The articles fail GNG; you cannot disprove that (unless you can provide SIGCOV, even local sources are ok, in that case welcome). You mentioned NEXIST; however, I cannot find any independent reliable coverage of the stations. WP:TRAINSTATION, an SNG, has long been deprecated. Also, I don't see any harm of removing articles with no extra information; the articles I nominated are almost identical, and readers cannot get any useful information out of it other than a few specific parameters which may not interest most readers, not backed up by RS, and can be shown in a list of stations. After all, Wikipedia strives for quality, not quantity. Timothytyy (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to these policies, well before yet another passionate response ;-) If you feel that there is a strong case somewhere hidden among all these metro stations in different cities and states, you could go ahead and nominate that station. gidonb (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Not only is this far too many articles for a batch AfD, but major metro stations of a major metropolitan city are inherently notable. It is impossible for there not to be extensive government reports, surveys, budgets and other records on such projects. As mentioned above we have articles on stations of every other major city. I honestly doubt anyone would even think of AfDing any of the similar London Underground, Berlin U-Bahn or Paris Metro stations. Is this a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Articles exist not because of inherited notability but because of coverage. If you cannot provide SIGCOV about those stations, they fail GNG and I see no reason to keep them. Timothytyy (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothytyy, you have had your say. There is no need for you to sandwich everybody else's comment with an explanation of why you disagree with them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Do you think your stance is supported by relevant guidelines? You don't seem to understand how notability works. No users supporting keeping provided a valid criterion; you two's comments are just nice examples of OTHERSTUFF votes. Timothytyy (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are divided between Redirection and Keeping articles and there is an underlying critique from some editors of such a large bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's apropos that a discussion about metro stations may end in a trainwreck. In lieu of source hunting or verifying, which is hard in such cases, I'm going to suggest Keep all because of
1. Multiple have notability established at this point.
2. One editor was !voting redirect in hopes of quickly restoring several that may have SIGCOV.
3. One editor is concerned about WP:NOTTEMPORARY and removal of references.
4. Other implicity trainwreck !votes.
5. Good faith nominator got pinged back a couple times, and is now accidentally bludgeoning the discussion, unfortunately making it even harder to follow for every new editor to arrive here, meaning I don't think the situation is going to improve at this point.

—siro χ o 05:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per all keep votes above. These should not be bundled into a single nomination but judged on individual merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as a bad bundle, with no prejudice to re-AfDing in a more individual fashion. Bundling stations from different lines and especially different cities is highly likely to not succeed. AfDs that bundle stations only from one line in my opinion will product the most significant results. Jumpytoo Talk 04:27, 27 September 2023 (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.