Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golconda Express


 * 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   snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Golconda Express

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fairly obviously not notable; it's a single slot on the train timetable. The fact that a single source says it was the fastest steam train in India does not allow it to pass WP:GNG, or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, for that matter. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Fairly obviously notable as one can see from inspection of the sources per WP:BEFORE. These include lots of news coverage of a major derailment; coverage in books, including a complete book dedicated exclusively to this topic; and details of speed records and other facts about the service.  And that's just in English; no doubt there is much more in the local languages of Urdu and Telegu, which will not appear in ordinary searches.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage of a derailment does not denote coverage of a particular slot on a train timetable; notability is not inherited. Is there actually a complete book dedicated to a slot in a train timetable? Ironholds (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is, as you would know if you had properly followed the deletion process rather than trying to set another speed record with a prodigious deletion spree. Your claim that the service is but a single slot in the timetable is the weak argument of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH.  This is quite inadequate as a reason to delete as notability does not depend upon quantity.  And, in any case, if there were any sense to that argument, the remedy would not be deleting but instead merger into a larger topic such as the line or the railway company. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The derailment received widespread coverage including debates in the national parliament. It can be added to the article. It is a named train service - that makes it slightly more than just "a particular slot on a train timetable". It used to hold the fastest train record in India. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "This train runs via Vijayawada, Warangal and Kazipet. This leaves Guntur at 5:45AM to reach Secunderabad at 13:45hrs. Return a second rake of this train leaves Secunderabad at 13:05hrs to reach Guntur at 21:20 hrs." implies a single slot. If the derailment is notable, it can be given separate coverage; again, notability is not inherited. The potters bar crash does not give that particular slot in the National Rail timetable notability. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. Named passenger trains are usually individually notable, and are often quite different from one another in their equipment, length, schedules and pricing. - Eastmain (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Another reason why WP:BEFORE should be required. Nominations like this just waste time. Over-rapid NPP does not work well.    DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination declaring its notability does not seem well-thought out. It appears to be notable from article and sources. Something other than nominating for deletion would have been a better use of community time. Please consider. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - not sure of the state of the article before the present, but at this point it seems to satisfy the notability guidelines and merits inclusion. Regards,  Cocytus   [»talk«]  04:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there seems to be sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. The book mentioned by Colonel Warden shoulkd be added to the article. DES (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has a reference to a book citation and the fact when the book was published. I think the article needs more sources about the train though. --Bsadowski1 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It gets mentioned in a book for being the fastest steam passenger train in India back in 1973, plus has news coverage.  D r e a m Focus  08:07, 6 January 2010 (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.