Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 MRT train disrputions


 * 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. Consensus ist that this is does not merit an article, per WP:NOTNEWS.  Sandstein  08:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 MRT train disrputions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOT NEWs. Local events, no evidence for connection between them, no reason to think historic impact; all transit systems has disruptions from day to day, but keeping a log of them is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Utterly trivial. Even the title got disrputed (sic)! Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been to correct the misspelling in the original title. Should the AFD be moved too? According to The New Paper, the disruptions this week are the worst in the history of the MRT, their CEO considered resigning and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a public investigation. Since the disruptions are a current event, we cannot assess historical impact yet, but there certainly is potential for historical impact. Hence I suggest closing this nomination as premature and give the article several months to develop, after which the article can be renominated if the press coverage quickly stops and there turns out to be no real historical impact. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. If kept it should be renamed to something like Singapore MRT disruptions, 2011 as it is not immediately clear what the subject of the article is.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, WP:NOTNEWS. Information is already mention as a section in the rail operator's main article, does it really require a dedicated article? Granted the news did make it to a handful of international publications, though whether this news has staying power remains to be seen. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)·
 * Comment I added the recent disruptions under each line's main article as they are significant enough. I was actually wondering should there be a separate article just on the North-South disruption as it is the worst disruption, spanning 2 major disruptions over 3 days, 1 planned delay in services which were further delayed (18 Dec). Also Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong interrupted his own holiday just to address this issue. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Improve I will be improving this article to provide more sources, more information and related info, plus u need to examine which trains and further summarisation. Got SGWiki and SGTrains Wikia, including some other websites. Timothy Mok Wikia is like Uncyclopaedia. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - a compendium of news items -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pardon me on Wiki guidelines but that will make a lot of of wiki articles "a compendium of news items" then. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Some, and I emphasize "some" news items may be noteworthy because of their impact, but all I see here is a bunch of news reports about train delays. I see no evidence of enduring impact to the historical record that would justify its inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - I will actually like to reduce the scope of the article to just the incidents, and related, to the North South Line disruption on 15 December. Political impact analysis on the incident. Public inquiry  on the incident by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who cut short his vacation to attend to the matter. As J.L.W.S. The Special One mentioned, this maybe a premature nomination and if no further evidence of historical impact surface, this article can be renominated. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Trains will break down from time to time, and this is not a single, massive incident (e.g, a major disaster – touch wood) that warrants separate treatment. The authorities claim all the breakdowns, though happening around the same time, are unrelated to each other. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this would certainly be unremarkable in much of the world, this was unprecedented for Singapore and was major news not just there, but around the world.  A selection of reliable sources entirely about the breakdowns: see eg. Washington Post, Reuters, AFP, Boston.com (via AP), Shanghai Daily with the prime minister calling for public enquiries, much analysis of political impact etc. Jpatokal (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - While significantly reported in the locap papers in those first few days, WP:NOTNEWS seems the order of the day as reporting seems to have trickled off. Would have put MERGE but I see that it is already mentioned in the SMRT article. Btw an IP is removing the AFD notice on the page which I have reverted. DanS76 (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will be retained - for the MRT disruptions as it was updated at all the day. September, October and December are cluttered with serious pressure. No need to ignore and talk all about. Can you think of other things, such as TalkingCock.com, in order to emphasize this. Let the Wikipedia pages be meant for seriousness and not to be screwed up. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2011 (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.