Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benniganahalli 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 no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benniganahalli 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 as no SIGCOV can be found. Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Timothytyy (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothytyy and @Spiderone,

Pls let me know what more useful information or this so called "SIGCOV" needs to be there so that this page will be there in the long run. Cause all the information regarding this metro station have been provided. There is no need to add extra unnecessary information for the audience. All they expect is simple and crisp neat information which is there in that page. And I personally feel whatever information is provided there, it's very useful for other people travelling to this city and getting to know which place leads to where and all. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, SIGCOV exists, see e.g. [1]. I am on ipad now, and it is difficult for me to add useful info from this source to the article, but I will try not to forget to do it when I am back.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no new content has been added to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: no individual SIGCOV added since nomination. Timothytyy (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is demonstratably incorrect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter All 13 sources in the article only provide coverage for the metro line, not the station itself. Is my statement incorrect? The source you provided in this discussion looks like ROUTINE, providing only a very brief intro to the not-so-newsworthy baggage scanners and how the station brings convenience. Also, the website doesn't seem to have a reputation for fact checking. I don't understand why GNG is met when only one short source provides coverage for the subject itself and it is ROUTINE. If you can find better sources that provide detailed non-routine coverage to the station, welcome to add it to the article. Timothytyy (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says that the station was opened later than other stations of the line. Now, concerning my source, what else would you like to see for the stations? This is valid information, and constitutes SIGCOV. Note that I have not yet added it to the article. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations: Fails GNG, routine news doesn't show notability. // Timothy :: talk 16:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @TimothyBlue,

All information regarding this station has been added. What more information is needed for you to know? As @Ymblanter says that it has constituting SIGCOV, I request you to maintain this page. Santosh4118 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Santosh4118 The only source given is routine coverage and does not contribute to GNG. Also, the problem is not about the amount of info. Timothytyy (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources sufficient to pass GNG. Don't agree with that part of the rationale put forward in the nomination of "no useful information is provided" — purely subjective. Don't hold with the interpretation of routine coverage put forward here. Routine coverage is about an event, soon forgotten as evidenced by no sustained coverage. There has been coverage on this station from planning, construction and opening. Strictly separating the line from the station in coverage doesn't make sense as the two are inextricably linked. The station is a major part of the infrastructure of the line. References to Benniganahalli in the sources are to the station, there isn't a place called Benniganahalli, just a lake. Admittedly, sources are not brilliant but this is overridden by the premise that Wikipedia readers would likely expect to see an article on this station, based on similar metro stations in other cities having their own article. It's not some minor railway halt used by few, but an access point to the metro used daily by thousands. Rupples (talk) 17:50, 4 November 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.