Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airlines awards and accolades

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 all. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Airlines awards and accolades[edit]

These articles fail WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. All of these articles are sourced only to the airline's PR department. A mention of 1 or 2 of the awards in the main airline article is sufficient; we don't need sprawling lists of airline-related PR on WP. Russavia (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail all of the above:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Huaiwei (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Huaiwei (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. --Huaiwei (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The Singapore Airlines awards and accolades article has been nominated for AfD by the same user before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines awards and accolades, and the result was keep. The reasons to keep has remained the same, and applies also to each of the articles nominated above.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaningless cruft; should be replaced with summaries and links to the respective airlines' own listings of their awards. Jpatokal (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the major keep arguments used in the Afd for the Singapore list last year was that the main article was too long to keep it so a separate article is required. You are correct that the right response to horrible cruft is the delete it, not to create a separate article for it. --Russavia (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Emirates Airlines. There is no way this should be its own article.Rracecarr (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jpatokal Tavix (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a good topic for a stand alone article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A related article Singapore Airlines awards and accolades, is not a standalone article. It is an extension from this statement in the main Singapore Airlines article: "Singapore Airlines have received numerous awards and accolades for the standard of service it provides. It claims to be "The World's Most Awarded Airline".".--Huaiwei (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Then all that is required is a ref link in the main article, not a whole new article sourced only to a single source; that being the PR department of the airlines concerned with this Afd. Additionally, as the article is in the WP mainspace, it is in fact required to fulfill the same policies that any article is required to follow. These are not lists which are useful for red-link article development, but crufty PR/advertising lists. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - I feel that the Emirates Awards and Accolades article has the potential to be a concise list which can be of use. I feel that the feeling of PR is overblown and is more in the mindset of individuals heavily involved in the editing of articles related to airlines, rather than from a neutral person who just happens to steps upon the Emirates article and wants to find out more. Despite this, the standard of the article should be upgrade to that of Singapore Airlines' - if that is not done in 30 days then Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the Emirates article is up to the 'standard' of the Singapore Airlines, it shouldn't be kept, but removed even quicker, due to the Singapore Airlines article being cruftier, and still all sourced to only a single reference; the Singapore Airlines PR department. Also, don't remove the Afd template from the Singapore Airlines article, as that article is also up for deletion as part of this Afd. --Russavia (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply So you think that the article citation (Singapore Airlines Public Affairs) is incorrect? Maybe instead of AfD-ing, you could take some time to improve the citation to your standard perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment WP:SELFPUB states 'Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:'...'the article is not based primarily on such sources.' Even if other sources can be found, then there are still very real notability concerns as there is not substantial coverage by reliable sources on the subject of 'Airline XYZ awards and accolades'. --Russavia (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This breakdown of awards is far, far, far from notable. Heck, the Skytrax article only lists the Best Airline award. If information about the "Best Cargo airline to Australia" win is notable at all (ha!) it would belong in an article about that award, not here. Bm gub (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please forgive my ignorance, but I understood that nominators and supporters of deleting articles were advised to provide evidence of their attempts to find sources and evidence of notability before proposing articles for deletion. Are Russavia, et al really putting forward the proposition that there are no sources for either the facts or the notability of Emirate's awards? Alice^✉ 09:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Short of videoing searches made via different sources, I do believe that it is the requirement of those who believe that these articles should be kept to show that the lists are in themselves notable by providing information from reliable sources, which cover the subjects in-depth in order to write an encyclopaedic article. It should be noted that in the last 12 or so days, there has been no attempt by any of those editors who think these articles should be kept to show notability by providing such sources. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This Afd was re-listed so that more comments could be obtained. Unfortunately due to the confusing templates that have been placed at three separate airline articles, editors that might be tempted to comment are being referred to an old Decision that has already been made. I also deprecate the confusions between three separate articles - why do you think no-one has commentated on the Malaysian Airlines article? It's because editors there think the template is a typogrpahicla error and relates solely to Emirates. This confusion is a clear abuse of process and this allegedly triple Afd should be terminated at once and properly re-notified according to the guidelines. Alice^✉ 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This Afd has been listed inline with guidelines. Please refer to WP:BUNDLE. this is one example of where similar articles have been nominated for deletion. --Russavia (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BUNDLE states clearly that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group". Russavia tried it with one article, and didn't get his way. He now tries it a second time, albeit by highlighting the worse-quality article and group nominating related articles, obviously including his original primary target.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment All 3 articles have been equally highlighted, and all 3 articles are of equal poor-quality due to all 3 articles being sourced to a self-published source, which does not provide us the ability to verify inline with policy the information contained in those articles. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Malaysia Airlines awards & Singapore Airlines awards and accolades These 2 pages have been nominated for deletion but failed due to most wikipedians felt these pages should be kept. Jannisri (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that Concensus can change. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed. WP:CCC states that "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent. A precedent usually has reasons too, which may still be valid. There is a distinction between unresolved good-faith concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and disruptively trying to enforce an individual view."--Huaiwei (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Huaiwei, before you go accusing others of being disruptive and of trying to enforce an individual view, in other words, not being civil, you should not that the number of editors who also share the same view as myself on these articles are clearly shown above. --Russavia (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I made a direct quotation from a policy you cite, Russavia. If you consider such an act uncivil and amounting to an accusation, I can only infer that emotive reactions as a result of your guilt in the said accusation. By your comments on the views expressed by others, I take it that you are hoping to obtain a mandate in being disruptive, by orchestrating attacks against weaker articles in a bid to drag down stronger ones. I will therefore initiate decoupling of articles from this nomination which has passed previous AfDs as per concerns expressed by several others.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A selection of the more notable awards should be placed into the main article, with a quick summary of the others. Wexcan (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any of the awards are really notable then copy into main article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, any particularly notable awards should be copied into the main article, otherwise it just becomes superfluous fluff not worthy of a standalone encyclopedic article. SempreVolando (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wexcan, MilborneOne, SempreVolando and as probable violations of WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. This issue basically is a different form of other aviation related information where it has been agreed by consensus that every tiny detail is not needed in articles. We need, first and foremost, to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a dumping group for every fact about a company. Yes, there will be exceptions but most of this is not in that category. If any of this is listified in the parent article, and clearly every award should not be included, they should be done some in some type of summary. If the result here is deletion, that is supporting deleting all but selected awards and that whole sale copying to the main article is not acceptable. The fact that the nomination is being changed out of process only serves to make a contested decision even more difficult. By only retaining the notable awards in a condensed form, the previous keep opinions to avoid a merge to an overly large article are dealt with in a reasonable way. Also consider if every company started listing every award that they have received. These lists would I suspect exceed that rest of the content in many cases. That may alone support the contentions by some that too much of this data is cruft or advertising or marketing sales pushes. Finally I do hope that whatever the decision is, that it is made based on the consensus strength of the arguments and not the listed strength of the votes. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decoupling of multiple nominations: As Singapore Airlines awards and accolades has already passed a previous AfD process, and that there has been no major changes since the last nomination as per Wikipedia:CCC, I hereby remove this article from the above nomination. Users are welcome to initiate individual nominations on these articles subsequently.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted the above changes by Huaiwei, as he was not the instigator of this Afd process, and as [Singapore Airlines awards and accolades]] has been part of this process since the beginning of this Afd discussion, I don't believe he has the authority to remove any other article from this process. --Russavia (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (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.