Talk:Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Station

India: Bihar Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as Low-importance).

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger Discussion

Request received to merge articles: Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Station into NTPC Limited; dated: September 2024. Proposer's Rationale: Owned by NTPC and there is little to no reason to have seperate article, All plants are owned by one company. Discuss here. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning that ownership alone negates the need for a separate article is flawed. NTPC owns over 40 power plants, each with its own unique history, specifications, and role in the power grid, which merits individual coverage. By this logic, assets like ships and submarines wouldn't require separate articles simply because they belong to a Navy, which clearly is not the case. Just as vessels have distinct operational details and historical relevance, power plants, including Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Station, deserve their own space on Wikipedia to provide comprehensive information to readers. Consolidating all into the parent company's article would diminish the depth of detail that each asset offers. iAshwinDeshmukh Deshmukh.3851 talk 21:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objection with no support and stale discussion. I also note that omnibus disucssions are much more efficient than multiple distinct discussions on several pages. Klbrain (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]