Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Bengal Gateway


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Bay of Bengal Gateway

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Similar to MEETS (cable system), (AFD closed as Delete) this is a stub about a yet-to-be built telecommunication cable. The consortium that wants to build it was formed in May of this year.

Fails WP:FUTURE: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors.   While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Toddst1 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples:
 * "Omantel inks submarine cable linking agreement". Times of Oman. May 18, 2013.
 * Additional sources from April 30–May 2, 2013:, , , ,.
 * – Northamerica1000(talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * GNG about something that doesn't exist? I think you missed WP:FUTURE. Toddst1 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, per WP:FUTURE, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Contracts to commence upon the Bay of Bengal Gateway project have been signed, and it's estimated to be completed and utilized sometime in the fourth quarter of 2014. See text and sources I added to the article that confirm this. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 01:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just because a contract has been signed and it may be built in the future, what is so notable about this? Sources prove that some companies are working on this, but WP doesn't need to report on every business endeavor. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural close and then restart this Discussion in a new Nomination. For some reason, this shows up on the main WP:AFD page as linking to the Talk Page rather than the Article. Technically, that would be WP:Miscellany for Deletion. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I do not see WP:FUTURE indicating planned or proposed future projects ought to be deleted.
 * Stating the policy, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.
 * Per WP:GNG, this is a keep.
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Per . ~KvnG 21:19, 3 January 2014 (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.