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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni–Lucknow Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all listed today Bolierplate statement on each nom that comes down to 'my PROD was rejected, so this is the next step'. Please explain on each of these noms a broader statement as to why you're seeking deletion than the same rationale across all of them. They're also too numerous to ever come to a consensus on all of them, and at worst they will all be redirected to an omnibus article, not deleted. Nate • (chatter) 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because these are basically the same article, just about different non-notable subjects. There are hundreds of such articles created by a small bunch of users that all follow a similar pattern and that is why the same rationale works for each of them. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. The articles about the trains from this list that I have checked appear to be mechanically generated from entries in some database. Their content is mostly identical and each article does not appear to warrant its own discussion. Essentially, we have here a timetable of Indian railroads in a representation that is very inconvenient to use. Indeed these articles can be combined into one table that pretty much will be a copy of the original database. Since a timetable for the Indian railroads must already exist somewhere, a better solution might be to redirect them to a single article about the timetable itself with no details about particular trains, for the latter the article in turn will contain a link to the original, always up-to-date, searchable database. The schedule of regular trains updates many times a year, so we really should not get ourselves sucked into maintenance of these articles. Викидим (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The timetable: [1]. This website is used in the references of nearly all Indian Railway service-related articles, whether notable or non-notable. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It would have been more productive if @Arnav Bhate had bundled these nominations as I don't expect editors to be able to reply responsibly to every single one. That said, I do think the nomination statement is appropriate; it makes an assertion about lack of notability and offers a rationale. If the rationales are identical, that's an issue for discussion but not a reason to issue a blanket "keep." Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That said, I do think the nominator should re-do these nominations as a bundle to facilitate participation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I had previously done a bundle of nominations, where users commented that they didn't like large bundles for article evaluation purposes. When there are such a large number of articles, one way or the other, there will be a problem. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet WP:GNG. It may fall under WP:ROTM. We can instead redirect to a broader article that covers train services in India. Such an article will arrange the details in a more helpful and easy to maintain format. It will also retain the essential info in these many entries.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link to ANI above is broken (missing a trailing full stop) - see Special:Permalink/1237570534#AtridMitch. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link is also broken: it's spelled Special:Permalink/1237570534#AstridMitch. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles about trains that are not special in any way. Per my comment above, Wikipedia is not a place to keep a non-searchable, non-official, never-up-to-date, and bloated with repeated text copy of a railway schedule database that already exists elsewhere and does not have these drawbacks (cf. WP:NOTDATABASE). --Викидим (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is a train-line. Coverage such as [2] proves it exists, but doesn't demonstrate notability. Is East Central Railway zone a reasonable merge target? Walsh90210 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These articles are about individual trains running the line, AFAIK. They can be merged together (or to some other article), creating a timetable. We do not create articles for each star in the sky, although very detailed databases exist that, just like timetables, can be used to mechanically generate some text for each line in the database. Unlike the sky, the railway timetable keeps constantly changing, creating a maintenance nightmare on top of these WP:ROTM concerns. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a train line, but a train service. The zone article could have a section about operated services, which could contain a list, so in that way it seems reasonable, though I am not in favour of it. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. I can't let this pass without making a comment. This article is only one of so many articles that a fellow editor has listed en-mass that will likely be deleted. So little effort required to have so much effort deleted and then it's gone from wikipedia. As a wikipedia reader I've looked up trains in India when I've "armchair travelled" after seeing the movie Lion_(2016_film) and this kind of information in wikipedia makes my wikipedia experience better. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the page creators and contributors. Speaking for myself, your efforts are appreciated.Rockycape (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Indian train articles. WP:GNG, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTIMETABLE all apply here. Zero evidence that these services are independently notable. Astaire (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to point out that "delete every single article on an Indian train" is not appropriate. Vande Bharat Express, for instance, is clearly notable. What needs to be done is the consolidation/redirection of many of the bare-bones service articles, such as Barauni–Lucknow Express. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a difference between a service type, like Vande Bharat Express, "named" trains that have a long history and are reflected in sources, and WP:ROTM point-to-point scheduled trains. The articles targeted for deletion are of the latter type, where the only information about them can be obtained from a train schedule (or sources that copy from such schedule). Consolidation of such information will simply create an Indian train timetable here in Wikipedia, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Викидим (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By "all Indian train articles" I mean all the articles that the nominator has listed. I am obviously not arguing to delete articles not listed for deletion. Astaire (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and all the others nominated at the same time per my rationale for deprodding. If these are not individually notable then they should be merged and redirect to a list or similar articles rather than deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, merging/redirecting these articles would violate WP:NOTDATABASE, because India runs mainly point to point services without any sort of large sense of cohesion or shared corridor/frequency/stopping pattern. That makes attempting to make any sort of article detailing the services basically a timetable which is against policy. Even redirecting to a general article about express trains in India is not a good idea because of the fact the names were made up by the author and are unlikely to be a useful search term. Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, there are 45 of these AFD pages on trains and this is the only one that has any substantial participation and I still don't see a consensus. If you are proposing a Merge, you need to also propose an existing target article or your suggestion can not be considered. And because this is not a bundled nomination, "Delete all" can also not be carried out across separate, unconnected AFD discussion pages. So far, the vast majority of these 45 AFDs have no participation at all and since they were all De-PROD'd, they can not be closed as Soft Deletions and are likely to be Kept if there is no further participation on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 31 July 2024 (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.