Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonifacio Global City 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 delete. Consensus is that there are not enough available sources at this time. If anyone wants the article userfied while more sources become available, let me know. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Bonifacio Global City station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Too early, proposed station should be included in the construction plan, not as an individual article. We don't know if anything will change before it is actually built, there is also very little to add while it is only planned. Viztor (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 11:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. All proposed stations of Line 9 have individual station articles as the definite route has been announced by the Philippine government and its project has already broken ground. Since it has been announced that construction of the project will start next year and the announced final route definitely includes the station,it would be prudent to save the article and add more relevant details down the line instead. The same should be said with all other Line 9 station articles.

Jpg0813 21:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unless there is significant coverage of the construction for this station in particular, I don't think we should have any articles about a project whose scheduled completion date is six years away. signed,Rosguill talk 22:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I agree with the observations of and . Stricnina (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The station is no longer a proposed or theoretical location, but rather a definite stop of the line. Government anmouncements, news articles, JICA reports, and procurement documents for its construction attest to this, albeit the last one is difficult to use as a source for obvious reasons.

In addition, a lot of future stations from different ongoing or approved projects are documented here, some also nowhere near the construction phase. Notably, the articles of the other 13 stations of this subway line seem to have passed the test. Therefore, what makes this particular station different from the others?

Jpg0813 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot vote twice to create the illusion of popularity, and please format your comment next time.Viztor (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies.I'm not trying to vote twice. I'm still new to these parts so please pardon my innocence.Jpg0813 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You should only preface your comments with a vote (i.e "keep", "delete", "weak keep", "redirect", etc.) once per discussion. Otherwise you can preface your statement with "Comment", or let it stand on its own. It's also usually good form to start new threads of argumentation with a bullet point so that it's easier to follow discussion the page. signed,Rosguill talk 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Korean See my comment below, please. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. These articles are definitely verifiable and passes WP:GNG criteria being parts of ongoing multi-billion public transport infrastructure projects. The proposed location and other specifications are definitely noteworthy to the riding public, and merit their own separate articles more than any Category:Proposed skyscrapers which only benefit the select few who utilizes them or owns/developed them. Korean Rail Fan 01:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Rosguill. This article plainly fails WP:CRYSTAL. It's also not Wikipedia's job to be a public service announcement about this proposed station and projects, even large expensive ones, die all the time before coming to fruition. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, if a plan is notable enough it might merit an article, however, the detailed stations in the plan do not have independent notability outside of the proposal do not deserve an article on its own, also . Viztor (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unless there is significant coverage of the construction for an old project. --MA Javadi (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it seems a bit funny to have an article about a station that will not be opened for another six years. Vorbee (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: Since there are other proposed stations from the plan, if the result of this discussion is to delete, should we just PROD other related articles? Of course, if there is no suggestion of independent notability for any other reason. Viztor (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * why are you relisting your own AfD? Please leave this stuff to the admins. At any rate, delete per above. – bradv 🍁  13:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just learned. Viztor (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Example: The Wikipedia article for the Singapore Metro's Canberra MRT Station was published on June 2014. By that point, it was still a conceptual station via the mentioned Master Plan in the article. Construction was not announced until mid-2015, and completion is slated for later this year. Hence, the article was first made a little more than a year before its construction, and 5 years before its actual completion and utilization.

The difference with the above case and that of the BGC and other Line 9 stations is that

A. These stations are officially under construction now, as is the case with the entire line, and therefore past the planning phase.

B. These stations are already announced and right-of-way acquisition is underway, hence we know where the stations will be located, coupled by the JICA papers which serve a similar purpose to the master plan in the Singaporean example.

C. These stations are well documented in media reports of its groundbreaking, officially announced as such by those in charge of its construction as well as bidding documents, and are therefore more than conceptual plans that may never be built since they have the necessary announcement, study and paperwork as backup.

This is our argument as to why these articles are to be maintained. It is not as if these locations are pure fabrications. There is enough evidence to support the notion that these locations are on their way to be realized. If other articles elsewhere started with mere master plans, why can't an article whose construction is already underway in every sense of the word could not? Jpg0813 14:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case you referred to, the station is in its own plan. However, in this case, there are multiple stations in a single plan. I fail to see how these stations are independent notable besides the plan, most of the things about the plan are the same. Viztor (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, a plan is something that is still conceptual, without appropriate backing, funding or implenting paperwork. As I have said, these stations are beyond this stage, since the funding, backing, and implementing rules for their realization are already laid down and these are well documented. It is only therefore right to document the parts of the whole that is being realized since without these parts, the whole is nothing. What I fail to see is how is this not the right time document these since we have enough evidence for their eventual existence.User:Jpg0813 04:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A mere existence of something is not the criteria of inclusion, not to mention eventual existence. Like a said, even if it is a finalized plan, there is just nothing to write about, as least for now, until it's actually built. Viztor (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But as the original example of the Canberra station illustrates, it doesn't prevent future stations from being included as long as there is sufficient evidence of those in charge are on their way to have it built. The original Canberra article merely stated the history of its planning and the statement that it will be built. On the other hand, our station is already tagged under construction via the line being officially under construction, not to mention its initial projected completion. I would argue that in these beta version articles, Our station has a higher likelihood of completion than Canberra was. It is therefore only prudent to start its documentation so as to be accurate of its history as it builds.Jpg0813 17:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not have significant coverage in sources yet. ST47 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Viztor (talk). -MA Javadi (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom and it's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Masum Reza 📞 06:04, 26 June 2019 (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.