Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Ring Road


 * 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. Pigman ☿ 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Central Ring Road

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a proposed road in the city of Bangalore, India. It is not yet known whether this road will finally be built. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article may deserve a place in Wiki in future, not now. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --  ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The crystal-ball rule applies to unsourced information and original research about future events. It does not apply here.  One can find articles about this proposed road (stating how much is planned to be spent on it, what it is planned to be constructed from, how long it is planned to be, and so forth) in The Hindu, in The Hindu, in the Times of India, and by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike PR office, for example. Renaming this to Transport in Bangalore and making it a summary style breakout of Bangalore, so that it can cover all of the roads and the entire transport development plan, seems wise, but no deletion or administrator intervention is required in order to make that happen, just a will on the parts of editors to write.  Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP:CRYSTAL rule does apply here. This is what the guideline says: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As per this, there are not many takers for this project. Moreover, the present Karnataka Government which proposed this road, is no longer in power, so this project might not even see the light of the day. The road is not even built, then how does one establish notability of it. It would deserve an article on its own, if and only if it is sufficiently notable. By the way, the road that is being talked of is not known as Central Ring Road, it is actually known as Core Ring Road. Here we have an article which talks of a proposed road which is not even the correct name of the road, we do not even know whether it is notable enough, do we really need to have such an article? -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not apply. That you are right here discussing this proposal based upon what a source says about it should be a big clue to this.  And that this is another source, in addition to the four that I cited, should be a big clue as to whether the subject satisfies the PNC.  As for the name:  You have a rename button.  Use it.  Administrator intervention is not required for you to rename articles.  I even gave you a good idea for a name, above.  You also have an edit button, that enables you to edit the article and include in it all of the verifiable knowledge about transport development in Bangalore that you are turning up. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, let me re-iterate. A future event is considered notable only if it is almost certain to take place. All citations provided talk of proposals and the construction of this road has not yet even been started. Do we want to become crystal-gazers and come up with an article on this subject when there are no signs that such a road will eventually be built. We have seen umpteen projects like this in Bangalore, that have stayed only on paper, ELRTS, Monorail etc. Let the construction of this road begin and let that prove notable, only then would an article make any sense. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Major transportation and city-plannign projects like this are notable from the time they are seriously discussed. It is not talking about an event, but the planning, which in itself is notable, and adequately sourced. DGG (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2007 (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.