Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 380 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 380
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article, which is about the inaugural flight of the Airbus A380, fails WP:NOTNEWS and is really ultimately trivia. All of the important information in this article has already been included and discussed at the A380 article. Would be a WP:PROD candidate except that it passed a previous AFD in 2008. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing more than trivia. The subject is worth mentioning in the Airbus A380 article, but is already included there now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - save that which is already included in A380 article, there is nothing of note. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think there's an article about the inagural airline flight of the Boeing 707, the Boeing 747, or the BAC 1-11, no need to have one about the Airbus 380. It's the biggest airliner now, but there have been "biggest" before and there'll probably be bigger in the future. No prejustice against preserving as a redirect to Airbus A380. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - Not sufficiently notable for a stand alone article. Merge a summary of the cited text with refs to Airbus A380 and redirect there. -fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  The maiden commercial flight of the largest aircraft in history is an historic event and not "routine" or anything like "announcements, sports, or celebrities."--Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And when the the maiden commercial flight of an aircraft larger than the A380 (Boeing Pelican?) takes place, what then - do we delete this article then? Notability is not temporary. But this is a clear case of where the claim for notability/historicness is temporary. We don't have an article on the first commercial flight of the 747, as I noted. Or for that of the de Havilland Comet, for that matter, which is indisputably permanently historic as the first operational commercial flight of a jet airliner. If the maiden commercial flight of the A380 is notable and deserves an article, so to do those of the 747 and Comet; otherwise it's blatant WP:POV. I don't think, however, we have anybody saying we need articles on the first commercial flights of those types, which raises the question of why the A380 deserves one when they don't - a question that can't be answered other than with, "it doesn't". - The Bushranger One ping only 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we had other articles about the maiden flights of those aircraft, I'd support their existence. They probably don't since Wikipedia didn't exist then and significant coverage has not been current.  --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to promote Recentism. -fnlayson (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But these are historic flights which that essay (not guideline) doesn't apply to.--Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If they're all equally historic, they all deserve articles regardless of when they occured - or they all don't. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Utterly ridiculous, there is no enduring notability for the literal flight from Singapore to Sydney. Airbus A380 covers the not-news event to the extent that it needs to be covered. Tarc (talk)
 * Delete event already covered in both Airbus A380 and Singapore Airlines not really notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say merge, but it would appear the relevant info is already in the articles I would have suggested merging to. Mjroots (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep there hasn't been a first commercial flight of an airliner that has received more media coverage than, perhaps, the first Pan Am 747 flight. All proceeds of this flight go to charities, which could be an article in itself. Sp33dyphil  (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What could be an article in itself? List of charities given to by Singapore Airlines Flight 380 ? This is getting more and more tragically comic by the moment. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sp33dyphil. &mdash; Why so serious? Talk to me 05:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A launch of a new type of airplane is quite notable, and an article on that type of plane is more than justified. But to claim that the actual Singapore-Australia leg (Flight 380) it itself notable is just...I don't even know what to say, there is simply nothing in the sources to support the flight itself being notable. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - In my eyes it is not a notable flight, just as the first flights of the Comet or other major groundbreaking aircraft aren't given their own article, I don't see anything that makes this flight in particular noteworthy; the main article is enough. Kyteto (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or redirect. This is simply not encyclopaedically notable for a stand-alone article - everything about this flight that does have encyclopaedic merit is already in the main article. If it were, we should be including articles on the individual journeys that were the first commercial service for every new type of plane (and train, bus, tram, taxi, ferry, ...) or at least every one of these that was at the time of that journey the something-est (biggest, smallest, heaviest, lightest, fastest, most expensive, least expensive, ...). This example is just as ridiculous. Redirecting the title to Airbus A380 would discourage recreation - I don't mind whether the history should be deleted first or not. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:EVENT on every count. Regarding a possible merge, would the Airbus A380 article really benefit from content about the food that was served on the flight? I doubt it. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:45, 2 February 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.