Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline
Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As is the case in a related discussions in Votes for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination, my stand is to keep it.--Huaiwei 09:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous vfd. Kappa 10:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. detailed info, edited by a few users, probably will be expanded at some point. Astrokey44 11:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Difficult to maintain, and contains nothing but original data from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, who runs the airport. People who are looking for such data won't consult an encyclopedia but the operating authority. Delete. Pilatus 11:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WP != indiscriminate collection of information. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wile E. Heresiarch. -- Kjkolb 04:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hardcore listcruft. And, as with with most other useless articles, those who vote to keep this will most likely forget or ignore it once the AfD is over. Either that or divert their focus from editing good articles. / Peter Isotalo 04:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The list of passenger airlines using the airport in the article Singapore Changi Airport is both far more maintainable and likely to be of interest. This level of detail is too detailed to be either maintainable or of general interest. Caerwine 07:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments: to reproduce related comments in Articles for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination (2nd nomination):
 * Firstly, there has been a VfD for a related article 4 months ago, and the result was a keep. Is there any good reason to AfD this again now? I hope admins may take note of this.
 * Secondly, as proven by just how many updates this article got since 4 months ago, no, it didnt need alot of maintanence as I have said earlier.
 * Thirdly, yes, the information is original from CAAS, because wikipedia is not meant to be an avenue for original research. I canot be churning up my own numbers from thin air (although I do my own simple maths in coming up with obvious data, for eg, mannually counting the number of flights per week). At the same time, it is not a wholesale reproduction of original data, because this table combines information found in the Airport site, CAAS's monthly and annual reports (which is not available free online and required a trip to its library, which is not open to the general public), plus counter-referenced data from publications by the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines and theInternational Air Transport Association, again from sources not neccesarily available to everyone for free.
 * Fourth, please explain "indiscriminate collection of information", when the sources and the work committed to compiling the above data has been explained.
 * Fifth, I do not see how people can decide for themselves what would be considered "usefull" or "interesting" topics for users of wikipedia. Do we have a policy in only writting articles which people will be assumed to be interested in? Not really, because we only do have one for writing useful articles. How would removing data make this site any more useful? When someone just wants to know the number of passengers flown between Singapore and Sydney per year, and how that compares with other city pairs out of Singapore, why should we deny this person the chance to see this information in wikipedia instead of turning to another source?--Huaiwei 12:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * why should we deny this person the chance to see this information in wikipedia instead of turning to another source? Because recording every verifiable piece of data in human knowledge is not Wikipedia's mission. Instead, the parent article article needs to better summarize the subject, rather than including every associated number and piece of data. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wile E. Heresiarch. *drew 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Quale 07:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a helper article for Singapore Changi Airport, and is not meant to stand on its own. Merging it with its main article dosent quite make sense either, so wikipedia looses helpful statistics to support its articles because of technicalities like this then any other reason?--Huaiwei 08:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. as per Huaiwei. This is a helper article for one of the world's most important air transportation hubs. --Vsion 10:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean that every single fact about the airport is useful. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you demonstrate its "unusefullness"?--Huaiwei 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This information is too specific for Wikipedia. The main article on Changi Airport should talk about the history and significance of the airport and then have external links to websites which contain this kind of specific consumer info. Singopo 06:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if someone starts saying information should be deleted from wikipedia for being too specific. Based on that theory, we should all abstain from being specific in the articles we write and strive for murkiness? There is nothing here to justify that this article should keep to certain aspects of its existance. How do you demonstrate "significance" without the data to back it up?--Huaiwei 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a noncontributory list. This is a clear example of an indiscriminate collection of data, something Wikipedia is not. These raw numbers don't help illuminate the Singapore Changi Airport article; instead of making a list of raw numbers, instead rewrite Singapore Changi Airport to be a summary of the major airlines that serve the airport and the sort and amount of service they provide). People who want to get this info will go directly to the primary source, rather than going to an obscure list on Wikipedia (which may be out of date, depending on when someone last updated it). Additionally, the majority of Singapore Changi Airport belongs on Wikitravel or Yellowikis and not Wikipedia. Taxi prices? Bus service? This is not encyclopedic info. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If we may look at WP:NOT, there is non of those categories of information this particular falls into and hence is deemed as an "indiscriminate collection of information". Lists like these combine information from several sources to present in table form the traffic flow into and out of this airport, which is an important starting reference for anyone involved in international transport study, for example. May I remind that if it looks like a mess of "detailed" data to the less initiated, it looks elimentary to those who are more familiar with it, and that is the way it is designed to be. Unfamiliar with it? Let this be the intiation. Not enough info? Pay and get detailed info from the relevant authorities unless others are kind enough to add to this one.


 * You claim that "people who want to get this info will go directly to the primary source". The trouble is...could these people get it? I got some of these data by visiting the only aviation-themed library in my country, and only because my professor wrote in on a personal basis to the librarian to allow me in as part of my academic study. Sure, you could write in and subscribe for this kind of primary data directly from the publishers, but not before paying thousands of US dollars for them. Anyone can get this info? I doubt so. Wikipedia has a mission of providing and sharing knowledge for free, and I fail to see the rationale of asking these people who could otherwise be relying their research on wikipedia to look elsewhere?


 * It appears the only argument for its deletion is that the information is "not important enough". Who are we to judge? Yes, this article could outline the more significant flight routes out of this country. So when someone comes along and asks....how many flights and passengers from Africa are connected via this airport, and we tell them....sorry, that info is just not important enough for wikipedia?--Huaiwei 16:03, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.