Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines flight numbers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines flight numbers

It doesn't seem that there needs to be an entire article just for this extremely specific subject. No other airlines have it, and it seems to go against WP:NOT. Dbinder 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Dbinder 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --M@thwiz2020 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Also note that pretty much all articles in Category:Singapore Airlines should be checked over. SYCTHOStalk 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ruby 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as very easy to fall out of date. MartinRe 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep helper article to main SIA page. --Vsion 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A 48KB helper article? This information should be listed on the company site, and the main article should link there. SYCTHOStalk 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you have the link? Thks. --Vsion 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • For some reason, I can't access the company site. I would think the data must be somewhere, but the only reference cited was the homepage. SYCTHOStalk 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful information, this looks bias. Can't flight numbers have an article on its own. If you prefer to move the information to the main article, its fine. Why are we trying to give readers less information, when we are building an online encyclopedia? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a debate on the usefulness of the information. There is no need for a 48 KB article on one airline's flight numbers. The main article already has an outline of the flight number assignments, which is plenty for an encyclopedia. As I mentioned in the nomination, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Dbinder 14:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Then can you explain why this page stayed on Wikipedia for almost a year? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That's only an indicator of how much crud we have to clean up. Ruby 14:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and MartinRe. These numbers must change constantly. Singapore Airlinescruft, if you ask me. --Aaron 09:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A Singapore Airlinescruft too. --*drew 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Sliggy 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete difficult to keep up to date. Link to SA's website from main SA article and people can look up their timetable/flight schedules there.--Kalsermar 18:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, way too specific, and of too little encyclopedic use. A list of Singapore Airlines destinations and routes is fine but indvidual flight numbers is airlinecruft. JIP | Talk 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete can safely be left to the airline to keep this up to date. Anyone wanting to know a Singapore flight number will go there before Wikipedia, for obvious and excellent reasons. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kalsermar. —rodii 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft ComputerJoe 22:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can see plenty of uses for this in the future, especially when elaborating on our transport article. "Cruft" is being used too indiscriminately here, it wasn't created out of obsession. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. An informative and comprehensive look at flight numbers. This is information not crud or its non-word counterpart "cruft". Let's give contributors a minimum of respect. -- JJay 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: the paragraph in Singapore Airlines is plenty. Any exceptions can be noted there. Calwatch 05:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, otherwise transwiki per nominator's suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Airline scheduling information is prone to changing frequently making this thing tough to keep updated. It's better covered by Singapore Airlines' own website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a very good and well-researched article, but it is subject to change and is unencyclopedic. I hesitate to call it listcruft and I am not asserting anything but the utmost good faith by the nominator, but this simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Stifle 13:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per all of the reasons above. Vegaswikian 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —This user has left wikipedia 10:09 2006-02-02
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.