Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Standard disclaimer: This defaults to keep. Do not cite this alone as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines fleet[edit]

This nomination accompanies the Singapore Airlines flight numbers nomination. The fleet is not noteworthy enough in itself to need its own article. Most of the article is a list of statistics on the fleet anyway. I would support moving some of the data to WikiSource, however. Dbinder 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator). Dbinder 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the source belong to? SOME of the information, what do you mean? I have a feeling that you are trying to pin-point at our articles. Wikipedia has so many unencyclopedic articles, and this informative encyclopedic information is nominated for deletion. This does not fall in the criteria of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. So let's just withdraw this AFD, instead of making a big fuss here. Could we all discuss this at the talk page instead of bringing it to AFD and the article will be gone forever. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few things: first, where's this talk page you reference? The article's discussion page hasn't even been created. Secondly, the "Wikipedia has so many unencyclopedic articles" argument is old, tired, and doesn't work - you're an AfD veteran, you should know that by now. If you know of other unencyclopedic articles, you're free to AfD them yourself. Lastly, since this is not the type of information one would find in an encyclopedia or almanac, how is this not an indiscriminant collection of information? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have so many things to do beside AFDs, article editing, uploading my photos etc. Besides, now is the Chinese New Year festive season. I can't be doing too much work here. I will do all this when I have the time. I will just store it somewhere, to me it has an encyclopedic value. I'm an inclusionist, this articles are encyclopedic. Its I don't have the time to go and find articles to nominate it for AFD. I have to balance my school work with Wikipedia work. Fleet information does not meet the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, they are telephone directories and all the topics you can find at the WP:NOT page for more information. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be taking this as a personal attack. If you looked at my edit history you'd see that I've been going through airport and airline articles to clean them up. When I got to the SIA article I noticed a lot of unencyclopedic information. No one is belittling the myriad of contributions you've made to other articles about Singapore. And like I said, the information is not useless, it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dbinder 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This information is better than some vanity and neologism in an encyclopedia. There's some value in it. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins, please note that the nominator voted for his own proposal and should not be double counted. (No vote.) Calwatch 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - COMMENT It's customary to nominate and vote. __earth ^(Talk) 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's no such thing. Further, it's exceptionally poor practice; it smacks of an attempt to induce groupthink. Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Ikkyu2 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is informative for an encyclopedia. This article does not meet any of the WP:NOT criteria at all. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how bout this one: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --*drew 18:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though it's borderline "indiscriminate collection," it's well-presented and interesting. To me, at least. On the downside, if we did this for all airlines, seems like it would be difficult to maintain properly. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic content. --Vsion 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fleet and SIA are two different entities, just like the United States Army and the Military of the United States is. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a discussion of the fleet might be one thing, but all of the unencyclopedic tables made my eyes cross. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Singapore is one of the truly important global carriers and this discussion of their fleet is fascinating. I could spend hours digging into something like this and I know the subject interests an enormous amount of people. The fact that a team of editors have spent over a year developing such a great, informative presentation makes me proud. -- JJay 01:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I looked at this user's last 2000 edits and found none to any articles related to Singapore. However, I did discover that the user frequently goes to Afd pages to vote keep and then make comments like this. Furthermore, spending a year developing an informative presentation does not qualify material for inclusion in Wikipedia. Original research quite often takes more than a year, and that is explicity against policy. Dbinder 01:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? Must I have edited this article to vote? Or are you saying that only editors who work on Singaporean topics can participate here? Should I check your edits to see if you frequently try to delete material on Singapore? Frankly, I don't have the inclination to do that, but I am impressed that you found the time to study my last 2,000 edits. - JJay 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really not hard to look at someone's edit history. It took me all of 2 minutes. I didn't say you have to have participated in the Singapore project to vote. I was referring to your reason for your vote, which is ridiculous. Your statement that you "could spend hours digging into something like this" implies that you have some level of interest. Yet, not once have you even made a minor edit to a Singapore-related page. It also appears to be a trend that you vote keep and say how important an article is when you have no prior involvement in the subject. If you had voted keep because you believe it belongs in Wikipedia, then that would have been fine, but don't pretend to be overly interested in something you're not. Dbinder 12:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dbinder, your attempt to discredit my vote by branding it ridiculous is in very poor taste. As you are an authority given the "two minutes" you spent studying my last two thousand edits, you probably know that I edit articles purely at random. Your analysis would further show that my edit list articles do not reflect any particular interest. I would also submit that they do not reflect the articles that I read. They do not, by definition, show how I spend the hours of my day. Of course, your interpretation may be different, given that you spent "all of two minutes" on the issue, although in my defense I would say it took me somewhat more than "two minutes" to make those edits.

I did not ask if you were an authority on the airline industry. I did not ask if you were an expert on Singapore. I do not know if you are an airline executive with a grudge or an unemployed student with too much time on his hands. I do not know what articles you edit, or if you do any editing at all. I am also not going to ask to see the books you take out of the library. However, I stand fully by what I said. Airline fleets interest an enormous amount of people. SIA interests an enormous amount of people. If this was not true, I would have a hard time explaining the +100,000 google hits for the topic [1].

I do not believe that editing an article makes one an expert. I am unsure that there is a correlation between editing an article and knowledge. I also value the participation and input of all contributors. Please take more than "two minutes" the next time you choose to render judgement or attack someone. -- JJay 14:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does nothing to refute my claim. The fact that the subject is interesting to a large number of people is not what the debate is about. The question is whether a series of tables about an airline's fleet belongs in an encyclopedia. Finally, your sarcastic comments are not appreciated. If you interpret my questioning of your motives for voting here as a personal attack, then I apologize, but responding in kind is counterproductive. Dbinder 15:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do consider your questioning of my motives to be a personal attack, although I will accept your apologies. However, I am not here to refute your claims about my interests. Please also refrain from lecturing me about which comments are productive. I have not found your approach here to be productive. I did not find your attack to be productive. Lastly, I believe the question of whether I felt this article belonged here was answered with my original comment. -- JJay 15:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This is ridiculous, Dbinder. What are you trying to say here. Anyway, can't an article be different from others. Why can't we be unique? --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep An article on the fleet of a major international airline is encyclopedic (as far as a wiki encyclopedia - not paper - goes) and, as far as I'm concerned, reasonably interesting too. If we can have multiple articles on such trivia as Pokemon characters we can have an article on SIA's fleet. --kingboyk 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. If you wish to dig into my edit history, you'll find no Singapore edits that I can recall (but so what? I know an important global carrier when I see one), and a heap of 'delete' votes. --kingboyk 05:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I have yet to see a fleet table that requires an article. If you read the intro it sounds like an advert for the airline. There is a discussion going on about what needs to be in the fleet table. If this level of detail is really needed, then include it in that discussion because if we need it for one airline then we need it for all. Vegaswikian 05:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, none of the information on the page is cited. Tables of statistics like that need to have references. Dbinder 13:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The "lack of refenrencing" issue has been resolved.--Huaiwei 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As per below comment, it is ridiculous to believe that an article like this should be seen as setting a standard across all airline pages. Just as Category:Airline destinations does not contain an article for every single airline on this planet, it is ridiculous to set standards on how much information wikipedia can offer for specific topics of interests. The fleet table may be standardised to improve on aesthetic appeal and for ease in comparisons. Its standardisation does not have to be related to this particular article, however, for both can obviously co-exist as it already does so for SIA.--Huaiwei 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or transwiki per nominator. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic is already well covered in the main Singapore Airlines article, and the only thing new this article has to offer is a detailed list of all the planes, info which changes frequently and tough to keep current. Better to leave that to the aviation websites. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at best to Singapore Airlines. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikisource hosts previously published materials, not editor compiled lists. Perhaps some of this material would qualify, but do not delete because you are anticipate it being kept at Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I may be biased as the main contributor to this article, but that others similarly point out that SIA is considered a major player in the international aviation industry scene enforces the point that article like these should not be deleted based on the feasibility of having similar pages for all airlines. This article's existance does not entail that, and it never had that intention to. Individuals are entirely at their liberty to add similar pages to any other airline they deem feasible to do so. Secondly, this page is not difficult to maintain as claimed, for airlines generally do not see changes in their fleets any faster than otherwise imagined, especially when we are talking about SIA who buys exclusively wide-bodied aircraft, which are high-value planes usually taking months, if not years, to change hands. Last but not least, "listcraft", wikisource, and all that kind of stuff do not exactly apply here, when it seems neccesary to constantly emphasise that this is a helper article to prevent the Singapore Airlines page from becoming a monster article. I would certainly question the existance of all articles in Category:Airline destinations, Airline call sign, List of Boeing 777 operators, World's busiest airports by passenger traffic, amongst plenty of other similar articles. Deletionists will probably have a field day listing all of them for deletion if "listcraft" and "indiscriminant collection of information" are their sole criterion. I have yet to see anyone actually explaining why this is an "indiscriminant collection of information" btw.--Huaiwei 14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an interesting article. Too much bland statistical information, and I can't see how it could be improved. Singopo 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am surprised that personal "interest" is also a criteria for deletion. "Bland" statistics have a place in wikipedia, for they form the basis for more in-depth analysis. And that, of coz, is one example of a major room of improvement for this article, along with other possibilies for expansion (not neccesarily using statistics alone).--Huaiwei 17:31, 2 February 2006 (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.