Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camps and bases of the Singapore Armed Forces


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Camps and bases of the Singapore Armed Forces

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Article was previously also tagged unreferenced but the tag was removed together with the PROD tag.

Table is unverifiable and unsourced. WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia is not a directory of information. This is not an encyclopaedic list, but an indiscriminate one that serves no purpose other than a directory. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "indiscriminate" about this list than any other list, then, say List of army barracks around Aldershot. Given the nature of the list and the way the Singapore military threats such information, there are little verifiable sources on the internet for "classified information", even thou thousands of Singaporeans who walked through these bases will have known that the Commandos are based in Hendon Camp, for example. If the issue of verifiability is to do with the lists of units rather than the list of establishments, then I am sure the proposer can improve that on his own without flagging the entire list for deletion.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep an article. Indeed, the article you cite is about as indiscriminate as the nominated one. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep notable, encyclopedic and discriminate list which does not serve as a directory. Eleven of the entries have their own article, which serves to show that such a list is notable. I would presume some of the camps and bases are notable themselves, and thus this list is an excellent way of yet presenting the basic amount of information about them in an encyclopedic way. It seems that the nominator has misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY completely, this sort of list is not mentioned in any way in any of the subpoints; quite the contrary, the list portrays a collection of encyclopedic information. Arsenikk (talk)  11:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire list is unsourced. Have we been reduced to accepting unsourced lists just because items on them are blue linked and notable themselves? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working on sourcing it right now. Do you want to help? Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With due respect, it might not be a great idea for me to get involved given the SAF pay my wages. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a perfectly legitimate topic for an article. Military bases are notable, and we have lists of them for many countries. The article needs references, but it should be possible to verify most, if not all, of its contents and the remainder can then be removed. Based on what I know about the Singapore Armed Forces, the content generally looks OK. Given that the article has a clearly defined scope (facilities of the Singapore Armed Forces) I don't see how it could possibly be considered 'indiscriminate'. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the list is not indiscriminate - it has clear inclusion criteria, lists things which have a strong connection (all military bases in a certain area) and is probably complete or near-complete. It does not meet any of the things in WP:NOTDIR, as it is not a collection of loosely related information, genealogical entries, contact details, a list of events or insignificant items relating to a company or business, a sales catalogue, release notes, an unencyclopedic cross categorisation or a list of all possible details about the subject. It is not the case that every possible list of a certain type of object or place in a certain area counts as a directory. "Unsourced" is not a reason for deletion. "Unverifiable" is, however I find it very hard to believe that there are no sources concerning the bases of units of the Singaporean armed forces. Hut 8.5 11:53, 15 May 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.