New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express: This is not done for other countries.  I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: (Many of these already have multiple issues and/or are stubs) Post-close admin comment : I have commented out the full list of nominated pages because it was triggering the post-expand limit for templates on the daily AfD page.  -- RL0919 ( talk ) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More for consideration that I could not find the time to add: All such articles about individual services.  E.g. Humsafar Express articles, members of Slow and fast passenger trains in India, members of Indian express train stubs, etc.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India .  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair warning: AfD participants hate very long lists of articles.  Also just to put it out there, Shatabdi Express#Active is a good ATD for all the Shatabdi trains.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD participants hate very long lists of articles.  Then should I make multiple AfDs?  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 08:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What is happening Arnav??  Why are all these pages being asked for deletion??  I mean this is insane.  Sameer2905 ( talk ) 09:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am following my interpretation of the policies.  As an example, there are no articles about individual ICE or TGV services, or the train services of China.  Similarly, these articles are not suitable for the wiki.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 09:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep One of the craziest AfDs I have ever seen.  A couple I spot-checked are under-sourced, but train lines can be and are generally notable, and it's absolutely crazy to try to use a mass AfD to delete all of these at once.  This basically has to be closed as an administrative keep since you clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE search for any of these, and WP:NOT doesn't cover your reasoning.  SportingFlyer T · C 09:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not train lines.  These are individual train services, with articles consisting mostly of timetables, halts and coach compositions.  Everything else in these articles can be summarised into tables, these tables already mostly exist, just lack all the columns.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 09:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] so request to add all train services to this list.  BhandupAamche ( talk ) 10:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are too many: I counted at least 600 more articles.  I don't have the time or patience to nominate such a large number.  My hands are already cramped from this list.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 11:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but request to add only the services like Shatabdi, Duronto, Uday, Vande Bharat, Amrit Bharat, Tejas Rajdhani & Rajdhani, like these not the normal express trains or ac express.  BhandupAamche ( talk ) 12:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding any additional articles after the AfD has started is likely to just be further disruptive.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is why I stopped.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep .  While the nomination is well-intentioned, it's too hard to evaluate so many different articles (I count over 230) at one time, in one discussion.  Some might be notable and some night not be, but a bundle this large is unwieldy.  Shaws username .  talk .  11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But you have to agree that nominating more than 800 articles in any bundle size will be unwieldly.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 12:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] pls refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coimbatore%E2%80%93Bengaluru_Cantonment_Vande_Bharat_Express as extension for more services articles.  BhandupAamche ( talk ) 12:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do, but with a list this size if someone was to only spend one minute on a WP:BEFORE (which usually takes longer) it would take them just under four hours to go through all of them and specifying which are different (if some are) would get very difficult.  Shaws username .  talk .  12:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I consider these articles to mostly be a violation of WP:NOT as consisting mostly of information that does not belong in Wikipedia, such as train timetables and coach compositions, which may also be subject to frequent change.  In this case most of the checks of WP:BEFORE shouldn't apply, right?  I agree that it is very difficult, but something has to be done as soon as possible, otherwise the number of such articles will continue to grow.  Is there a place where I can establish consensus on whether a train service article consisting mostly of such things should exist on Wikipedia or not?  If there is, then I will withdraw this nomination and instead go there first.  Once consensus is established, such articles can slowly be deleted, via, say WP:PROD .  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with the reasoning though, but I agree that many of them probably are a violation of WP:NOT and they sound unencyclopedic.  However, some might have notability from other reasons but there's no way to know without a WP:BEFORE .  I definitely agree that something should be done though (although I'm not sure what) or the list will keep growing.  Like IgnatiusofLondon , I'd also agree that redirects are preferable to a mass-deletion (at least until they can call be checked) An RfC might also be a good idea, perhaps a concensus that a certain topic needs to be checked and then nominated editors can work through with a faster deletion?  And no I'm not proposing doing 100 a day, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas had a procedural close for the same reason, they've been listed 3-5 a day to slowly work though.  (Although with an amount this large that would obviously have time issues)  Shaws username .  talk .  15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the lot, strong objection to "procedural keep" - I do not think that "procedural keep" is helpful.  There are lots of these train service articles - they are not about lines - they are about allegedly-named services on those lines.   There needs to be a way of discussing whether Wikipedia should have these articles.   Discussions on Wiki projects don't really work.   People have articles on their watch lists - they do not find out about Wikiproject discussions relevant to the articles - there needs to be a fair way of having these discussions - and this is probably the only way that might work.  I doubt if any of these train services are sufficiently notable to justify having an article on them.   The ones I have on my watch list tend to cite train timetable websites and sometimes news articles that mention the service.   Are "procedural keep" editors saying that they would prefer that Arnav Bhate started (for example) 100 deletion discussions each day?   If he/she did, the text of the justification for deletion would be identical in all 100 each day.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Deletion is the strongest possible remedy.  Some of these articles might pass WP:GNG , or at least seem like they do.  Some of them obviously don't as written but might with a WP:BEFORE search.  It's just impossible to tell when there are so many nominated at once - bulk nominations have to be done with care.  In the past, figuring out the question of if we should have these has been done by RfC, and then the articles deleted through a series of bulk nominations.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not familiar with the process of creating an RfC.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Consider Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over and Wikipedia:Delete the junk .  These are not policies but essays and they are not exactly applicable here, but keeping so many bad and possibly inaccurate articles just in case a few might be good does not sit right with me.  These articles pop up on the first page of google results and may potentially contain outdated information.  Editors who want to can start the article again.  We can even redirect instead of delete to make it even easier.  But an RfC is probably the best.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect, I don't think those essays are really applicable here: In this context, the essays sidestep the major concern that several editors have expressed: that some of these articles might be fine, but nobody's going to pick them out when we have 243 articles bundled together for deletion.  For what it's worth, notability aside, the few articles I've sampled from the list aren't shockingly bad: they just need to have their timetables removed and their contents copyedited to ensure the articles are aware that they have been written at a particular point in time.  If we applied WP:TNT , I don't think any new articles on these services would be dramatically different to the articles we currently have, if these articles should exist at all.  Thus, the strongest deletion argument for these articles is notability , not the state of the articles.  The rationale in your nomination, WP:NOT , applies to sections with these articles, especially the timetabled sections, but we can imagine (and in fact, Wikipedia does have) articles on train services that don't violate WP:NOT .  If the only reason for deleting these articles is that some of their current content should be deleted, then per deletion is not cleanup , WP:TNT is a little lazy.  As I said in this discussion, nobody has bothered to update those unreferenced sections describing mostly-defunct passenger services at Italian railway stations for 10 years.  I'm fairly confident that train operating companies and booking sites have a similar if not higher SEO ranking than Wikipedia, and people expect Wikipedia to be unreliable on this kind of topic.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 18:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know they are not applicable, they are just similar in sentiment.  When sections violating WP:NOT are removed,what is left in most articles can be summarised in a table similar to the one at Vande Bharat Express .  Also, yes, it is lazy, which is why I said RfC would be best.  And you can see why someone might be a bit lazy: there are more than 900 such articles that I found in a list, with many more that I know exist but were not in the list.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And no one has improved the articles despite them being tagged for multiple years, this shows that there isn't much interest in improving them.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles about services definitely aren't the norm.  For example, you will find that none of the services in List of TGV services have articles.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't a great rationale for deletion either; it's analogous to WP:OTHERSTUFF .  Each article should be evaluated on its individual merits, not the merits of other articles.  I'm fairly confident that there is sufficient coverage using reliable, secondary sources to sustain an article on Frecciarossa 's Paris–Milan route that started a few years ago; that there isn't an article on it, nor any other Frecciarossa route, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, just that no editor has got round to it yet.  Besides, Template:Infobox rail service is used on approximately 3,000 pages.  And notability derives from the universe of available sources, not the current sourcing an article uses.  So, your previous comment, no one has improved the articles , is textbook WP:NOIMPROVEMENT .  The strongest argument for deleting these articles (and this is only my opinion) is their notability, not their current content or presentation.  Indeed, it is preciely the notability bar that means that many railway services do not justify standalone articles.  By whichever process this series of articles is brought to community review, I suspect that the community will likely want to evaluate the individual notability of individual articles, or pursue appropriate alternatives to deletion for articles that do not evidently demonstrate notability.  I notice this is among your first AfD discussions, and I offer these suggestions as friendly advice (and it is only my opinion, as a new-ish editor), just as other editors have offered the friendly advice that bundling so many articles for deletion together is unlikely to yield the result you expect.  It's worth having a read of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions if you haven't already.  Your commitment to keeping Wikipedia's coverage of Indian transport at its highest possible standard is laudable, and I'm grateful that you're giving this series of articles the attention it deserves.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep : I'm minded to agree that "train service articles" likely fail notability guidelines.  I also agree with other editors regarding WP:NOT : the schedules are unencyclopaedic and I doubt anyone is going to maintain them consistently for them to reflect future changes.  I recently came across a similar issue on Italian railway station articles : ten years ago, an editor decided to add the services passing through each station unsourced, but a recent spotcheck found that many of these services are no longer extant.  All the same, I'm not convinced AfD, either as bundled or individual nominations, is the best or most efficient venue to discuss where the line should be drawn for a series of articles this large.  There might be subtleties in coverage that allow some services to have a stronger case for meeting notability guidelines.  Only for that reason, if this AfD isn't closed as "keep", I think redirects as alternatives to deletion are preferable to mass-deletion, because the likelihood of a "mistake" is quite high when editors can't reasonably be expected to carry out WP:BEFORE on such a large number of articles.  At the back of my mind, I wonder ( WP:IAR ): could this issue be brought to RfC or some kind of temporary WikiProject/taskforce specifically to decide and execute consensus?  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we're going to bulk delete this many articles, I think a RfC is functionally necessary to determine these aren't articles we want on the site/that this group of articles collectively violates WP:NOT .  Further complicating matters is a number of these do actually meet GNG and the problematic parts of the article, including timetables, can simply just be removed without deleting potentially encyclopedic information.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree 100%.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects to the main service articles are fine with me as well.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support in principle but procedural keep , I do agree the vast vast majority of these articles are not notable (seeing as they are not named and are just called "[TERMINUS A] - [TERMINUS B] [TYPE OF SERVICE]") but a 200 page size bundle is impossible to go through in 7 days.  RfC first would probably work better, or some particular egregious examples can be done maybe 10ish articles at a time?  Jumpytoo Talk 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the lot the articles I have sampled are poor quality and not important or useful enough to keep here.  Sgroey ( talk ) 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Procedural keep due to the unwieldy size of the list of nominated articles.  Consider steps mentioned in WP:ATD , such as redirection, and nominating articles in much smaller batches.  Java Hurricane 02:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So would you be fine if I redirected these articles to the main service articles?  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you did that en masse , redirecting might also be disruptive...  SportingFlyer T · C 21:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have removed sections definitely violating WP:NOT from the first few articles.  If this is fine, then I will continue to do so later.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've reviewed three of these and this looks good to me.  One was clearly under-sourced and might have been deleted at a stand-alone AfD.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep .  It's not possible for a single discussion to evaluate 200+ articles when there's variation in the content.  An RfC would be helpful for gathering information about Indian train services--naming, sources, what is and what is not encyclopedic. Given that standard, it would be easier to evaluate individual articles. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep I understand the intention here but it just isn't possible to evaluate this number of articles in any good faith way. Have any page creators been notified because the creator of New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express was not and the discussion should involve still active page creators. Merging and redirecting is also an option that doesn't involve a 200+ page AfD. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep per all above. It is simply impossible to fairly evaluate this many disperate articles concurrently in the time available (and this would be true if they were listed in separate AfDs at the same time as well). This is magnified when we consider that there is a high likelihood that sources discussing are going to be in languages other than English. Thryduulf ( talk ) 20:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep A good chunk of the articles here, especially the Rajdhani, Shatabdi and Vande Bharat trains are sourced enough to clear WP:GNG . As stated above, evaluating 243 articles at one go is impractical. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk ) 20:39, 25 February 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.

Discussion outcome: keep