Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Singapore Airlines destinations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Singapore Airlines Destinations was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Cool Hand Luke 08:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page compiles volatile commercial info, which by essence are invalid if not retrieved directly from company information system. Non encyclopaedic. Practically it is advertisement. Actually for the same reason, the category Category:Airline destinations (British Airways destinations, United Airlines Destinations) and all it's entries, looks pretty much void to me. A nice clean-up may be done there ? Not sure though. --Gtabary 10:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See the category. Category:Airline destinations

  • Keep I have to point out that this particular page was created in order to keep the mother page shorter, as has been also done for the other two entries listed. You can find similar destinations lists following this format in just about most major airline entries. If this is considered advertisement, I suppose we have to remove all destination information for airlines across the entire database? Just my two cents. --Huaiwei 11:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Content is not encyclopedic. It is better delivered to readers through other sources (such as the Singapore Airlines website). And, yes, I would probably vote to delete the other "destinations" articles if they are listed. Rossami (talk) 17:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to stress on some points again here. 1. As I said earlier, these particular pages were once part of a far larger entry of the airlines themselves. If, due to a policy of splitting the pages up when they run too long, we end up having to split them like this for presentation purposes, and therefore suddenly running the risks of having them entirely deleted when such a call has never surfaced before, I suppose we shall all have to merge them back again to save the information? 2. Unlike previously assumed, destinatons lists presented in a uniform manner like this does not come easily for every airline, and not even always easily from their official webpages. Some actually involve having to extract the relevant data from entire schedule tables and so on, for the latest and most complete information. Not all airlines bother to indicate the exact airport used, and this can involve additional research on our part. 3. Due to the very nature of the aviation business, just about anyone interested in aviation study, or aviation enthusiasts, invariably need to consider the extent and reach of its operations, and unless we wish to go back to having vague commentary that it "flies extensively to Western Europe and some parts of the United States," there is simply no simplier way then to list the destinations out one by one. 4. Lets be fair. So if some airlines happen to have longer lists, and the whole results are considered unencyclopedic, I suppose bigger airlines shall have no destination lists, while smaller airlines will? That makes little sence. But if we were to then take the stand that all lists like these are indeed worthy of deletion, then shall we delete any destination lists in every single airline article? I went thru Category:Airlines, and I find destinations listed in: Aer Lingus, Air Burkina, Air Caraïbes, Air Finland, Air Gabon, Air Madagascar, Air New Zealand, Air Polonia, Air Santo Domingo, Air Seychelles, Airzena Georgian Airlines, American Airlines, Ariana Afghan Airlines, Azteca Airlines.....could have gone on, but this is tiring. I merely went through those airlines starting from A in the list, and that was what I got. I suppose the point has been made. 5. And while we are at it, I suppose we should remove the fleet information as well, since that can be found in other sources too, and seems to advertise aircraft makers, if this is the way we are to interpret lists and data which are not narrative in nature? Do consider these points when voting, thanks!--Huaiwei 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 21:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Want to share your reasons why? james_anatidae 23:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • For the same reason Wikipedia doesn't keep bus schedules. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • An airline destination listing is not the same as a bus schedule. A bus equivalent, will probably involve listing the bus terminals it operates to, which is probably within our means to add. If we want an airline schedule, it would involve listing all the flight numbers, flight times, days of service, planes used, meals served, and that kind of stuff, information we are obviously not prepared to provide. By the way, airline schedules change only twice a year in terms of flying times, and even then, I dont think its worth listing that out. But what I did do, however, was to list out the flight code numbers, with the intention of linking code numbers to important incidents. In case some of you arent aware, we actually do have individual pages of significant flight numbers already, as you can see in the incidents and accidents listing.--Huaiwei 07:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I have no problem with the splitting out of these articles, I question the value of having non-authoritative lists of rapidly changing commercial entities. What's the point? and who's going to consistently update it? -Vina 22:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Everyone! Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? A work of facts that is constantly updated so we can post articles that need to be changed every so often by anybody with the correct facts? james_anatidae 23:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • One way to look at this is that you're burdening everyone else with the obligation to keep it up to date. That's quite different from writing an incomplete article which is informative as it stands. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • 1. The thing is if you refer to my above points, destination listings are actually in abundance across plenty of our airline pages already, added by multiple contributors. We cant exactly say that a singular person is directly burdening others. Just a few days ago, I helped expand Ryanair's destination listing to include all current destinations, and already, multiple contributors have moved in to make it better. I do not know if they consider it a burden! ;) 2. Secondly, and most importantly, those in the know of the aviation business will be able to concur, that except for new airlines, crazed and pocket-deep airlines like Emirates, and the equally crazed budget carriers like Ryanair and EasyJet, most airlines actually do have relatively stable destination lists, which dont involve more then 10 changes per year. Many airlines take years to negotiate new routes, and some route launches can be highly significant events in the aviation industry, because they can involve an unprecedented relaxation of governmental controls. Negotiation of aviation rights are well known politiking tools utilised by politicians, and not just airline bosses, and they do contribute much to political analysis, beyond a study of the aviation business alone. Therefore, airline routes are not like bus routes, in that they are probably less fickle and volatile. They cant just launch them and then drop them within months baring extraordinary circumstances, because we are talking about lots of $$$ invested in each new routing and its sometimes extravagent launch (heck, even a budget carrier in Singapore threw a massive party serving over 10,000 members of the public, who bought tickets to the event of coz, to an Australian-themed lunch to celebrate the launching of its Perth-Singapore flight!)--Huaiwei 07:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I think it is good to encourage people to section pages like this out of main articles, and if we delete pages like this, that will become hard to do. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. and Vina are right. Can you imagine the work it'll take to keep this up? Besides, it isn't anything that someone looking to fly on the airline couldn't find on its corporate website. - Lucky 6.9 00:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Refer to the above. And actually, I dont think our intention is to serve someone who is going to be a potential travellor. Rather, well at least for me, they are there for analysis of the airline's business.--Huaiwei 07:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, sectioning pages out of the main article should not lead to deletion of the new sub page. —siroχo 02:51, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for every reason listed above supporting its inclusion. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are good arguments either way though. --JuntungWu 04:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep A destination list (which this is) is not the same thing as a flight schedule. DCEdwards1966 20:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't content I had expected to find at Wikipedia, but Huaiwei et al have convinced me of its sufficienly notable and encyclopedic nature. It would be entirely unsurprising to find such lists in a paper subject area encyclopedia (of Air Transportation, etc.) Samaritan 21:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Removing sectioned pages would set a bad precedent and give the wrong message to our contributors. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Just FYI, intercity bus destinations tend to be pretty stable as well, at least in North America. The schedules change, but the destinations do not. The Steve 10:17, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see the point for the keep: It is somehow interesting to have info here. Though sounds like a good bit of maintenance required if we want to have accurate info. Some mentioned it; this kind of info is surprising on the wiki. I believe this is indeed like bus timetable. On the other hand I consider the "don't send wrong msg to contributors" rather important argument. I imagine also, as soon as page will be removed, genuine attempt to create them will pop up. So my conclusion: probably a weak keep. Gtabary 12:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm supporting this page due to the existence of the similar British Airways destinations page. The extraction of this list from the main British Airways article removed a large section of text from the article and in my opinion greatly improved it. The information is now readily available to anyone who needs it, but doesn't add unnecessary clutter. Similarly I think the Singapore Airlines destinations are a benefit to those who want it and doesn't complicate the main article. Further, the argument that it will be impossible (or very difficult) to maintain is not one I can agree with. The large scheduled carriers do not add or remove routes with great frequency. Mark 18:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cribcage 19:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Singapore airlines article [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Singapore_Airlines_destinations_3c6c.html"