Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines awards and accolades


 * 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines awards and accolades

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Awards which a company receives are not notable. A summary awards should be incorporated into Singapore Airlines Russavia 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; WP:NOT. A section in Singapore Airlines summarizing awards should be sufficient. --Muchness 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and copy the EL to Singapore Airlines. YechielMan 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article was split off from Singapore Airlines, where it was first added as part of the "service quality" section to demonstrate its reputation in the industry and to the travelling public.--Huaiwei 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article should really be incorporated in the main SQ article with a summarisation of awards, and a link provided to their website for a full rundown of their awards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs).
 * Comment If the idea to keep the main article succint by moving content to secondary pages ends up with the later getting deleted, then we are back to square one. I appears to me that you arent too familiar with the overall setup of some aviation-related articles, and the history behind some of their existance.--Huaiwei 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong KeepThe above logic by Huaiwei is correct. VK35 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main article already has too much information. I might agree with Russavia as an alternative but what happens if that information is removed from the site?  Maybe we need a discussion somewhere about lists of awards for corporations and how much of this type of information is needed.  Vegaswikian 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of series covering a major topic. As Singapore Airlines is recognized as top in its field, its list of awards is itself notable. Similar articles include Career achievements of Michael Jordan, List of awards and achievements for Madonna. Note also that it is common for a major topic to be covered by several articles with notability inherited from the main article. This avoids unnecessary cycle of splitting and merging. This is generally acceptable as long as the sub-topic is non-trivial, e.g. Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. --Vsion 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We should follow the comments by Huaiwei as it is conter-productive to delete it as it has been made to serve a purpose and will cause more problems in the future. But it should be changed a bit, maybe a blurb summarizing it's service and quality at the start and then a list of only the 'notable' awards given in the last few years Tom 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is indeed a very workable idea. There is scope for some content to be added to a simple listing of awards. This should help set the context for otherwise clueless users who think this is merely a standalone "directory".--Huaiwei 06:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a look at the entire Singapore Airlines series of articles, they come across as fanboyish. Along with Cathay Pacific and Malaysia Airlines, SQ does have a sizeable fanboy following. I posted on the main article talk page the fact that two awards which are mentioned, namely Scottish Passenger Agents Association and Korea Herald, The are listed in this article, which in the opening states these are significant awards. If you were to go to a travel industry quiz night and a question related to the Scottish Passenger Agents Association, the room would be scratching their heads wondering just who this organisation is, and what makes their award so significant. I know I would be, and I can guarantee so would the CEO of SQ. The list as given is a verbatim copy from this link. Expanding the article to try and put some context in it is pointless, as any information which could be included in the article should, or would already, be covered at Singapore Airlines. Allowing the article as it is to stand will only cause confusion amongst users who are using this site for it's encyclopaedic content, as they will only be met with nothing more than an advertisement. And where does it stop? I could easily make a list of hundreds of awards which Aeroflot has had bestowed on it going back to 1932. Does such a list honestly make much different to encyclopaedic value, particularly when a brief summary can be placed in the main article, along with a link (from which came all the info anyway)? --Russavia 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is perhaps a rather blurred distinction between "fanboy" topics and topics which commands singificant interest amongst professionals, academics, and the general public, thus fueling extensive writeups about them. But to trivalise efforts of wikipedians as merely "fanboy" without due consideration for the topic's notability seems a tad insulting to mature contributors, myself included. I agree that the two awards you mention are probably insignificant in the global arena, but a quick look at the list, and in comprison to the official site, shows that the list actually includes all awards received. The opening sentence which once appeared in the main article for a partial list was not updated when it was moved to the expanded list in a new page. As in Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations‎, outright deletion of the entire article is not the only solution to resolve a small factual error. If you are going to attempt a list of all awards won by Aeroflot, please consider if Aeroflot itself is a notable airline in terms of service quality, and a trendsetter in the global aviation industry. Listing all awards won by Aeroflot is perhaps of little encyclopedic value, but when Singapore Airlines claims to be the most awarded airline in the world, there is a far higher likelihood for users to question the validity of this statement, and to consider the range of awards won. Avoid assuming that just because XXX Airline has an awards page, all other airlines must have one too. Ultimately, notability is still key.--Huaiwei 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And to call people "clueless users" is also quite insulting. But I do think that you have proven my point with what you have written above. Particularly your comment about whether Aeroflot (used for this argument) is 'notable' for service quality, or a trendsetter in the global aviation industry (which it is if you get rid of POV and go back over 75 years of history). It should not matter if Aeroflot is noted for its service quality or not, but a list of awards should be appropriate if it is for SIA. The mere fact that you bring up this point is evidence that there is a high POV in that article, or at the very least, behind the article, for if you were of the belief that such a list is required for SIA, then you should also be of the belief it is required for every other airline out there which has received some award, no matter how obscure that award may be. It also seems a tad strange that it is necessary to have a huge list of received awards which have been ripped directly from the SIA website, then at the bottom of the article is a link to the complete list on the SIA website. Why not write a brief synopsis within the main SIA article, and provide the link to the SIA website as a reference point. To keep would be setting a bad precedent. --Russavia 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So what is your primary motivation here: Pushing for deletion because you were personally insulted, or because of POV issues, or both? (and speaking of that, kindly inform if this nomination is not a result of cluelessness of the existance of all similar articles, as well as a previous AFD only three months prior?) Now if it was due to POV over whether Aeroflot is more notable than SIA in terms of service quality to the point of actually considering my statements to be POV, then I am simply going to fall back on a fundamental police: WP:V. Please inform if any of those statements with regards to SIA are not supported by third-party publications. Please advise if there are third-party publications stating that Aeroflot blazes the trail in terms of service quality for the global aviation scene, and is well-respected the world over as a company. If so, you are most welcome to add these info to the Aeroflot page. I find it curious to observe that you appear to be demanding that sourced, verified, positive comments about certain airlines be removed by flagging them as "POV", just so that they all read and sound similar to airlines which are far less accredited for their service quality standards. If this is your hidden agenda, then I would think the deletion of this article is itself setting a bad precedent amongst users attempting to use wikipedia's NPOV policy as an excuse to censor out positive (and potentially negative) opinions, depite these opinions being verified and sourced.--Huaiwei 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, main article is lengthy enough. A longer paragraph should be written, maybe summarising some of the major awards. Listing the notable awards as what Tom said would be better and this will not be mistaken as a directory. Terence 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Russavia has nominated another three SIA-related articles   in the past few hours, all based on nothing but self-perceived "non-notability".--Huaiwei 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Huaiwei, the main article is already too long to be merged back in. This article could do with a cleanup of references and so forth. --User: (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 April 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.