Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATS Security Services


 * 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 no consensus. Some kind of merge-ish solution seems to be called for here. Someone, please, just be bold and follow one of these reasonable suggestions. Mango juice talk 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

SATS Security Services

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The company is not notable on it's own, and given the nature of the company business it would not generate much notable news upon which the article can be expanded. As it is a subsidiary of SATS, would recommend a merge with SATS, or given limited info on the SATS page, a merge with Singapore Airlines Russavia 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This user has nominated at least five Singapore Airlines-related articles in what appears to be personal crusade against "SIA Fanboyism ". Stubs, being stubs, have room to grow, and are not non-notable for being under developed. It has been said numerous times that the lengthy Singapore Airlines article is not an appriopriat avenue to constantly add information which has been stripped from it.--Huaiwei 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And I have nominated one Northwest category and one Cathay Pacific category, and I am sure there will be many more to come. And the reason I have nominated these SIA articles is because they should not be in wikipedia, as they are not notable entities, are not encyclopaedic, and they have no room to grow, hence why they are still stubs after some 2 years. So argue to keep on the merits of whether they do belong on wikipedia or not, not on some Singapore Airlines fetish which you seem to have, in which anything and everything to do with SIA needs its own article. --Russavia 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Russavia, your comment is very distasteful. --Vsion 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. notable auxiliary police force. --Vsion 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It would clean up the Singapore Airlines category that is for sure, and make such deletion noms less likely. --Russavia 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete These articles compose a directory of Singapore Airlines subsidiaries, and nothing more. At best they can be listed in the the airline's article. Mangoe 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In what way is an article on a subsidiary a "directory"? If it needs to be repeated once again, these subsidiaries were actually listed in the said article but were moved to secondary pages to trim the overbloated main article. Your suggestion reverses earlier initiatives, and is not exactly a feasible idea.--Huaiwei 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the overbloated article is not suitable, then surely it could be said that a page which will never grow pass stub stage would not be suitable either. Perhaps it would be better to create a new article such as Singapore Airlines subsidiaries and present the information in that article, whilst still keeping individual articles on the truly notable subsidiaries such as SilkAir. The articles which could be merged into the subsidiary article would be:
 * International Engine Component Overhaul
 * SATS Security Services
 * SIA Engineering Company
 * Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited
 * Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise
 * Singapore Airport Terminal Services
 * Singapore Flying College
 * Tradewinds Tours and Travel
 * Merge to Singapore Airlines Group. This information should not be moved into the Singapore Airlines article.  This should provide a strong article on the Singapore Airlines Group, which appears to be a company.  If one of the companies involved grows to the point that it should be split to an article, it should be.  Right now an article on the group is probably more important then one on each of the subsidiaries and partnerships.  Merges can always be done and when reasonable are preferred to nominating an article for deletion.  Vegaswikian 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please provide evidence that "Singapore Airlines Group" actually exists as a company. Several companies in this list, in particular SATS Security Services (one of only three armed auxiliary police forces in Singapore), Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise (Asia's largest aircraft leasing company, IIRC. Oh and btw, it is now a subsidiary of the Bank of China!), and SIA Engineering Company are already notable companies, some of which regionally even, irrespective of whether their articles are developed or not. Singapore Airport Terminal Services and SIA Engineering Company are major companies having listings on the Singapore Exchange. Just what are the links between Tradewinds Tours and Travel and Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited for them to exist on the same page, other then having a common parent company, which is Singapore Airlines Limited, not Singapore Airlines Group?--Huaiwei 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst Singapore Airlines Group does not exist as a legal entity, as a group of companies under the Singapore Airlines banner it does exist as evidenced by these links on the SIA website detailing Singapore Airlines Group activities, when discussing both the parent and subsidiary companies. As to why each of these subsidiaries should either be deleted, or merged to a single article, they are not notable enough to warrant articles which won't grow past stub stage. Sidenote: Seeing as SALE is no longer owned by SIA I am sure you won't have any objections to my removal of the Singapore Airlines category tags from that article, seeing as there is now no connection between the two entities. --Russavia 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Singapore Airlines Group", as Russavia himself puts it, is a convenient term to refer to the parent company (the airline) and its non-core subsidiaries. This is unlike the setup of other companies such as AMR Corp. which is a holding company for American Airlines, the airline company. Vegaswikian appears to insist Singapore Airlines is setup in a similar manner. Having a second article which actually refers to the exact same company is ridiculous and unprecedented in wikipedia. Next, Russavia insists on claiming on "non-notability" of all SIA subsidiaries, while having nothing to demonstrate this besides a google search. I am left wondering if his knowledge is determined primarily by Google or by his personal research when dealing with aviation-related articles outside Russia.--Huaiwei 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My own experience, including employment experience with Singapore Airlines, and via well known industry publications. Take for example, International Engine Component Overhaul, which has also been nom for deletion, just how notable can a company be when that company does nothing but repairs a few parts from complex machinery such as jet engines. Aside from being owned by Singapore Airlines these companies just aren't notable for an encyclopaedia. --Russavia 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you. If so, please state relevant "well known industry publications" which state that all SIA subsidiaries are non-notable companies. Ultimately, it all still boils down to your personal assumptions. The overhauling of engines may not interest many, but is interest=encyclopedic?--Huaiwei 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no industry publications which state that what you are making out that I said. Having said that, I have no industry publications which mention many of these subsidiaries in more than a passing fashion, as it is evident from even SIA publications, that these subsidiaries are first and foremost in existence in order to serve the parent company (that being Singapore Airlines), and to a lesser extent, Changi Airport, and if it were not for these connections, they would be 'nobodies' in the business world, as is already evident by the total lack of third party resources on these subsidiaries which are not 1) press releases, 2) puff pieces or 3) pieces which mention these subsidiaries merely in passing. Which begs the question, do you have any credible third-party resources which provides information on these companies which can be used in encyclopaedic content, or which can be used to expand on these stubs? --Russavia 17:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To cut the fluff from the above statements, it just boils down inevitably to one thing...that you simply have no other means of claiming non-notability other than google search (and only google news search at that). Kindly quote us which regulation in wikipedia rules that a company which supports another company is automatically non-notable. I suppose just about all state companies in the world must be removed overnight for almost singularly supporting theor respective Government as well? Do you even bother to read up on each article, and find out how much market share or client base they have to stake your claims? Finally, are you using AfD as some kind of an mechanism to push for the expansion of articles?--Huaiwei 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Russavia, please provide verification of claimed credential as per User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. --Vsion 17:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As per User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification I am under no obligation to provide any such credentials, as I am not proclaiming to be an expert on this given area, but am rather giving personal experience as a comment. Stop being so pedantic. --Russavia 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, and the same person claiming others are being "disrespectful" to him feels it within his rights to call others a Pedant. Now of course you arent required to support your credentials. The problem is the exact same essay says attempts by individuals to flaunt their personal credentials are frowned upon as well.--Huaiwei 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to SATS or Singapore Airlines. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP which is the relevant guideline. JoshuaZ 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please state relevant evidence showing that this article does not meet WP:CORP.--Huaiwei 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not the way it works. If you assert that a notability guideline is met, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how(otherwise anyone arguing for deletion of anything would have to essentially prove a negative). A google search doesn't show any non-trivial independent reliable sources about the company. If you have such sources please present them. If you think it meets another criterion, please explain how it does so. JoshuaZ 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. If we may simply refer back to our favourite google search, I sure hope none of the results are "non-trivial independent reliable sources about the company".--Huaiwei 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first page doesn't seem to be and I don't have time to look at all the others. Please go through and find two that meet WP:RS and then get back to us. JoshuaZ 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thanks. Will do so later.--Huaiwei 01:13, 8 May 2007 (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.