Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet (3nd 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   no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines fleet
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As the consensus on Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet indicates, there is no basis for sprawling registration lists. Furthermore, the content of this fleet page (the primary contents being the first two tables) can easily be integrated into the main Singapore Airlines fleet page, just like every other airline page on Wikipedia. This page has gone through 2 AfDs, both were inconclusive. However, Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet and Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet indicate a strong consensus within the community that the registration tables are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an aviation enthusiast website and is not an indiscriminate repository of information. There is nothing significant or special about Singapore Airlines that warrants a special fleet pages (using page length of Singapore Airlines as a reason isn't sufficient, especially when it is in dire need of cleanup. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Commentary Despite being the one that nominated this page for AfD, my vote is actually more a combination of Merge and Delete. To retate my point in a more concise manner, I feel that the first two tables should be merged into the main SQ page as those two tables are actually relevant and useful (just the way the equivalent of those two tables for other airlines are on those airlines' pages) while the long sprawling tables be deleted per WP:AIRLINES' consensus (as well as a consensus in regards to registration number tables established in Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet‎ and Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet‎). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Understanding the fleet operated by an airline contributes to a better understanding of the airline, particularly when it relies heavily on a single model or manufacturer, or is a launch customer for a particular model. In this case, Singapore Airlines is the launch customer for the Airbus A380-800. Retaining the fleet listing is also helpful in case one of the aircraft is involved in an incident and people search for the registration number. --Eastmain (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidents are usually documented on the airline's page or on a separate page if it's notable enough, and registration numbers can be documented. It makes it easier to acquire the registration number. By your reasoning, every airline should have such an extensive registration list (which WP:AIRLINES had previously established a consensus against having in the past already), but no such lists exist for other airlines. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we need lists of fleets by registration numbers? Why is listing fleets by individual aircraft provide a better understanding then simply by the number of a specific type?  Why do you need a fleet page to deal with accidents and incidents? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? The fact that most airlines do not have this "list" (yet) is not a valid justification for not taking this approach. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that 2 AfDs for articles based on long lists of registrations reached a consensus of delete shows that some airlines have had such lists but the community agreed that such lists ought to be deleted. Furthermore, your argument was used in previous AfDs, and such lists have never become widespread, destroying any basis for your argument. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information, well-written article. J I P  | Talk 04:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL (something straight from Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Care to elaborate? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with JIP, information should be kept, ideally in a separate article so the main one regarding the airline is not confusing. DPdH (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Commentary There are plenty of keeps in TWO previous AFD's. Is this AFD just an edit war or sour grapes?  Is this a ploy to destroy information.  You know darn well that putting those huge charts in the other article will eventually result in deleting the huge charts.  As far as voting, I abstain because I don't know enough about the topic to say but I do know enough about human politics to see trouble (such as multiple AFD attempts and suggesting merging that beast of a chart). JerryVanF (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, those ended in no consensus, so it's not really a bad idea to re-AfD and see if a consensus either way can be reached. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the tables that I feel ought to be retained are the ones that don't have the long list of registrations (the first two tables). The long sprawling tables ought to be deleted. For those long sprawling lists, WP:AIRLINES already has a consensus against their retention (however, some editors feel their opinion overrides the consensus of the community). For the first two, smaller tables, they're included in the main pages for pretty much every other airline. Looking in the forst two AfDs, the reasons to keep are all based on "the potential to expand this article and make similar articles for other airlines". Neither of the two happened. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator makes it clear in his comments that he doesn't actually want this material to be deleted. He is trying to use AFD to pursue a content dispute and this won't do.  Also, the topic is clearly notable, per the many sources.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How am I pursuing a content dispute? WP:AIRLINES and the provided AfDs have provided a clear consensus against the bulk of this page's content and against the first two tables being in a separate page. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are pursuing a content dispute because it seems that what bothers you is the format and some of the details of this article. Previous AFDs have kept the article and so their precedents are against you.  WP:AIRLINES is a project not a policy or guideline and so has no standing here, whether you accurately represent it or not.  No particular editor or group of editors controls airline articles per WP:OWN.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the two AfDs that I had provided links to (Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet and Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet) where a consensus was actually reached, as well as consensuses that had been established prior in regards to such articles. There is a consensus in the community in regards to how articles such as this article should he handled. The previous two AfDs reached no consensus, and admins that closed them said that they are not to be cited in future AfDs. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you actually had a consensus then you could merge the material without deletion being required. There is a merge proposal active and you yourself wish to retain material from this article.  The AFD proposal is therefore redundant and should be speedily closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete List of arguemetns:
 * There is consensus at WP:AIRLINES wikiproject that it's not necessary to have a table with every single plane on the fleet. Notice how the table even lists what route they make, so that info has to be updated every time that the plane is re-assigned to a different route. Notice from AIRLINES "Tables should not include individual aircraft tail numbers unless they have encyclopedic value", so the long tables on the fleet article ought to go because they don't assert any encyclopedic value.
 * There are also verifiability problems: where the heck do they obtain those long lists from? Is it really a worthy investment of time of editors to update a very long list of irrelevant data that they must be copying from somewhere else?
 * Size concerns. Once you take that info out, only two tables remain, with no sources to assert notability of this fleet. Also Singapore_Airlines is already longer than what would be left on the article, so it was not a split for size reasons. Looking at the links, it seems that this article is being used mainly to offload the long unnecesary tables to list every plane on their fleet, so it's just a silly fork so completionists can list every single irrelevant detail that they can.
 * using arguments from the 3 AfDs for other fleets. Notice the consensus at the other AfDs for articles on fleets of other airlines, which indicates that this article should have some remarkable characteristic that distinguishes it from them, or otherwise the same arguments from those AfDs must apply, even if those arguments are not repeated here, the articles are so similar on topic that the closing admin should take the same arguments into account when making his decision.
 * Consensus for deletion. Notice that consensus has clearly changed, the second AfD for this article closed as "no consensus" on October 2007, but the 3 AfDs for other fleet article closed all on May 2008 with clear consensus to delete and citing arguments on how WP:AIRLINES has finally decided that the long tables on those articles are not necessary (and those long tables are the only reason not to merge back into the article).
 * maintenance problem. Also notice that the fleet by itself is non-notable, that it will have less eyes into it that the airline article itself, and that unnecessary effort is being spent on keeping synchronized this article and the fleet section on the airline article.
 * standard reasons. WP:LISTCRUFT the article is listing all planes on the fleet for the sake of it, including irrelevant difficult-to-keep-up-to-date details, and no encyclopedic value is given. Also, this list will get outdated on a few year's time and will lose all value, but real notability does not diminish with time, which means that this list is not really notable.
 * Strength of argument: keep votes (at the time of this post) give no real reasons backed by policy
 * So, delete the long tables, and either merge what's left or perform a real split for size concerns, taking out all the fleet details from the airlines article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is amusing that you should belabour the point of size at such length. Note that the main Singapore Airlines article currently exceeeds our guidelines, being some 89K, and so there is a need for spinout articles such as this one.  The exact content of the fleet article and its maintenance is a matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Singapore Airlines is also in dire need of cleanup. There are financial data that have no basis for inclusion, and there is a lot of fluff. Size is not a valid reason for a spin-off, it's a valid reason for a clean-up. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many topics which require multiple articles to cover them fully. Even if this topic can be condensed into a single article, you should do this first through the normal editing/merger process per the existing merge proposal.  AFD is a blunt instrument which is neither necessary nor appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit history of Singapore Airlines, you'll see editors making changes, only to have them reverted by a particular editor. You'll also notice only one editor responded to the merger proposal. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit history will also clearly show that just one editor was repeatedly attempting to delete content, which several editors have restored, and even updated the restored content to boot in the meantime.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the actions of you and those editors go against various consensuses within the community. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which community do you refer to, and do this community have any greater leverage that those in the edit history page?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:AIRLINES community, a community of editors that edit websites pertaining to airlines. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this community include editors of the disputed article?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Singapore Airlines fleet is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation." Straight from the talkpage. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Enric Naval. If there is any notable information from the article that needs to be merged into the Singapore Airlines article as outlined by the nominator, than it should be done so. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Enric Naval. The only item which needs to be merged is the historical fleet information, without registrations, etc. I do feel that opinions stating that this information is needed to have a better understanding of the airlines history, fleet and operations are somewhat erroneous, and I will use an argument I have used in the past to demonstrate this. Aeroflot was once the world's largest airline, at any one stage operating many thousands of passenger aircraft, cargo aircraft, agricultural aircraft, medivac aircraft, helicopters, military transports, etc, etc. Since the dissolution of the USSR Aeroflot is a much smaller airline. If the "better understanding" reasoning is used for Aeroflot as it is often used for Singapore Airlines, what is stopping an article on the entire full historical fleet of Aeroflot being created by utilising several sources, including this one; that article would have to cover hundreds of wikipedia sub-articles to include the tens upon tens of thousands of aircraft that Aeroflot has operated over its entire existence since 1923. The only thing this article would demonstrate is that Aeroflot used to operate a hell of a lot of aircraft. I would stand somewhat firm in my opinion that there are only 2 airlines in the course of history which have truly notable fleets; those airlines being Aeroflot and Pan Am; and this is evident by the sheer number of books which have been written just on those 2 airlines' fleets, such as this, this, this, this, this; this doesn't touch on Russian language books of which I know hundreds can be found via sources such as the National Library of Russia. Pick a Soviet aircraft design bureau, Tupolev, Antonov, Kamov, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, Beriev, Lisunov, etc, and pick any civilian aircraft amongst them, and Aeroflot would have been the launch customer, so I feel that the justification that Singapore Airlines was the launch customer of the A380 is showing a somewhat recentism bias; plus every aircraft has a launch customer, we don't need full fleet listings based upon the criteria of them launching a single aircraft. Spotters might find the information useful, but this is not an airline enthusiast website; there are many of us who are airline enthusiasts on wikipedia, but we are helping to build an encyclopaedia, not an aircraft registration database, and that in my belief is not encyclopaedic. --Россавиа Диалог 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note with a fair level of alarm that information related to Aeroflot "are somewhat erroneous", and I do wonder if you are expediting any effort to correct them. That said, could you explain in some detail how those "errors" are relevant to the information now existing in this article, and if there are any actual errors, to point them out for correction? Could you also explain to use how this supposed "inability" to write an "accurate" article for Aeroflot by in any way detrimental to the existance of an article for any other airline, and if we use precedents as an argument in AfD votes?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject matter is non-notable. Yilloslime (t) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Merge and cleanup discussions should not be on AfD. The fleet itself is notable (whichever article it is in.)  Even if it is merged, the history and a redirect should be kept. The debate is only about whether the roster of individual aircraft should be included, not article deletion.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the two just closed AfDs for Virgin America fleet and Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet. The summary material can be added back into the main article.  A problem with this is that the SIA article is much larger then the last two, so moving any of this information back into the main article will increase its size problems, so I'm not comfortable with my position.  Maybe by restoring some of this material in a reduced form to the main article, someone will be able to find a way to split out a larger chunk of the material to an article that does not violate community consensus and makes everyone happy.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The SQ article is in need of clean-up at any rate; size matters can be taken care of in that process, under the assumption that mediation ever gets started. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per Colonel Warden --Firefly322 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (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.