List of Vande Bharat Express services: Rather one could add the services (which is already added presently) in the main vande bharat page and proposed services could be omitted, or written in short.  Better would be to delete this page and do the needful changes over the main page, and nothing would cause it to be so lengthy or scrumptious !! !  BhandupAamche ( talk ) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India .  BhandupAamche ( talk ) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, keeping in mind and considering the no.  of sockpuppets increasing maladroit edits.  BhandupAamche ( talk ) 13:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not a valid reason for deletion, it is one for protection.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 07:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Shaws username .  talk .  14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This page is not needed when there is already a page Vande Bharat Express with all service List and details.  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Talk:Vande Bharat Express/Archive 1#Should service table be removed and should it be replaced with Map, As size of Services table will keep on increasing .  Also, the main article contains the list as it is transcluded from this article.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 15:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge into Vande Bharat Express .  I would prefer keeping the articles separate, but merging is also fine with me, as long as the information is present on Wikipedia.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 13:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with your point and this is to be kept for keeping a track of the services this express is currently running.  Request the Wiki team to keep it as it is and not delete the page.  Sameer2905 ( talk ) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, having a separate article for the list of services is not without precedent, List of TGV services exists.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The Vande Bharat Express article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, this list is not.  We are here to write about subjects in a way that's useful to the general reader, not act as a webhost for indiscriminate railway statistics and trainspotting.  And no one in their right mind would use us as a train timetable service.  In the original article, a map would give the general reader a much more accessible overview than this over-sized table, so I'd have no objection to it vanishing from the main article too.  The talk page discussion referred to above included only three people, one of whom dropped out after making a single comment, so it can't be regarded as a conclusive discussion.  Elemimele ( talk ) 20:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I linked the talk page discussion since I didn't want to repeat my reasons, not because I wanted to show that there was consensus.  Also, all Indian train service articles have a list of services, this one's list is big enough that I felt it needed to be on a separate page.  (It is larger than the rest of the article.)  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 07:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A complete violation of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE , this information is too detailed and is equivalent to trying to have a table on every individual Shinkansen service or every individual China HSR service, which we don't do for obvious reasons.  I also note for some reason every service has it's own article, where the violations are even worse with the exact frequency and timetable being in every article...  Jumpytoo Talk 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] is equivalent to trying to have a table on every individual Shinkansen service You kinda do: List of named passenger trains of Japan#Shinkansen (bullet trains) .  Each one has an article too.  This is equivalent, but maybe with a little extra detail.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 09:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What I mean is that we do not describe each individual run of a Shinkansen service.  There is no information about what exact time the Shinkansen runs, only the types of service and a general routing.  In this case we are describing each individual service with the train number and exact timetable, that is too much.  The "names" of the services are also noting more than "[START] - [END] Vande Bharat Express" which is generally a sign it should not be having an article.  Jumpytoo Talk 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing for keeping the articles for each service, only the list article, with maybe a little trimming.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Travel guides : an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre , but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées .  Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like.  Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.  While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city.  If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage .  How is a list of services a travel guide?  Maybe an article for each service is too much, but a list is fine.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 10:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Reads like a trivia and advertisement.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 10:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The previous discussion never reached consensus as I had seeked for more opinions, which are now finally conveyed here.  Size of the table was the only reason helping the cause for a seperate article, but with the suggestions for optimizations provided above, it only makes the list article less useful and less accessible.  Footy2000♡ ; 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] therefore I can conclude that majority is in support of deletion for this article ?  am I right.  Pls correct me if not.  BhandupAamche ( talk ) 10:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:POLL Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 11:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. -- Imperial [AFCND] 18:49, 24 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: delete