Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 380

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; this does not preclude WP:BOLD editors from merging and redirecting as may be appropriate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines Flight 380

Singapore Airlines Flight 380 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Clearly in violation of WP:NEWS, and dare I say it, WP:ADVERTISING. Details are more than covered in detail in Airbus A380 and Singapore Airlines. Russavia (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think you meant one or both of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT#NEWS. Jpatokal (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry, yes, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. --Russavia (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Singapore Airlines, which already covers this subject. Mh29255 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS (what I think the nominator meant as WP:NEWS is not a "law" but simply a portal to news stories). If you read the full text of WP:NOT#NEWS, you'll see it it primarily about living persons and avoiding causing harm to private individuals. The first two sentences state "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." This article in no manner is harming any individual. And surely the maiden flight of the largest commercial aircraft is of historic significance. --Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And the last sentence of your quotation is especially relevant, as this flight received media attention for all of a twenty-four hour period, in other words it is of passing importance. Additionally, this was NOT the maiden flight of the aircraft as it underwent hundreds upon hundreds of hours of flight testing before even being delivered to Singapore Airlines. As to the notion this is not harmful to the subject, that may be the case, as most advertising is beneficial, however, it is harmful to WP. --Russavia (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That this event was of "passing importance" is but a matter of personal bias and perception. Even the aircraft's recent incident at Changi Airport when it rolled into the grass during pushback was widely reported by all major news agencies and picked up by thousands of other articles. To argue on technicalities on its status as a "maiden" flight or not in a bid to downplay its significance is completely moot, and he knows it. The global media obviously could not care less whether the aircraft was flying its maiden test flight or its maiden commercial flight with fare-paying passengers. To them, it is THE maiden flight of the worlds largest commercial aircraft (itself a technical error), and that was where it gained international prominence and notability. Wikipedia reports what the world reports, not what individuals with agendas think is technically correct.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable enough for an article of its own and already documented in Singapore Airlines and Airbus A380.MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From where did you deduce non-notability, despite obvious widespread media coverage?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and MilborneOne. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every aircraft model ever built has had an inaugural flight of some kind. There was some coverage, but I don't see how this can't be covered in a couple of sentences in both the aircraft model and airline articles. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every human has a brain and two legs of some kind, so I suppose we should not write articles on any of them too by this logic. "Some" coverage actually translated to hundreds if not thousands of news coverage alone all over the planet. Notability is established by the extent of its coverage, not necessarily by (current) article length.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect ot Airbus A380 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus A380 as suggested by 132. Flight 380 is part of the history of the Airbus 380, and not the other way around. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And Singapore Airlines has no part to play in this? Why should the article not direct to Singapore Airlines instead, when it was SIA which made it especially significant?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus A380 as suggested above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Singapore Airlines flight 380 has gained enough global notability to justify it's own article, with over 18,600 hits on google when searching "SQ380" alone[1], and with entire websites dedicated to this subject[2]. Notability is not established just because it is the "first flight". It was the first commercial flight of the current largest commmecial aircraft in operation, with high publicity and a relatively unusual means of selling off seats which has gained widespread attention. I do not recall any other "first flight" in recent memory which was telecast live on national TV, as has taken place for this flight. The flight is not only part of the history of the A380, but also that of Singapore Airlines, if not even more so for the later. Keeping this information on two seperate articles (both of which do not cover the subject in detail) is cumbersome, repeatitive and not helpful to readers.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Huaiwei (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how significant that "18,600" is, given that there's also stuff like the SQ380 Lockit-Socket Squirrel Mannikin, the China Cleaning Machine (SQ-380) and the SQ 380 Amplifier in there. For comparison, a Google search for "SQ 220" pulls up 6,960 hits. Jpatokal (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better google search is the news, with only 35 hits for SQ380+"Singapore Airlines". A website dedicated to the flight can't be used in any argument as it is not a valid source for information inline with WP policy. As to the notion that you can't recall any recent flight in memory, well how about the unveiling live Russia wide on TV of the Sukhoi RRJ? Given twenty four hours I too could come up with an article Sukhoi RRJ unveiling and provide enough marketing and advertising material in it to make it seem like a legitimate encyclopaedia entry, whilst in reality approximately 2 paragraphs would have anything to do with the unveiling, and the rest would read like a Sukhoi marketing brochure. And I could use this article as a foundation, and just replace the "Copyright by Singapore Airlines marketing department" with "Sukhoi", because the article reads more like marketing than an encyclopaedia, "They were pleasantly surprised...."? "adding buzz to the event"? --Russavia (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By Russavia's argument, we can deduce two things: one, since google's news search is considered reliable in this regard, he must be very confident that there are a grand total of 35 news articles in the entire planet which reported on this flight. How true is this? Common sense says otherwise. Second, since his search only constitutes SQ380+"Singapore Airlines", he must also be confident that all articles on this topic must mention both phrases. I happen to discover that the word "SQ380" actually do not necessarily appear in articles on the inaugural flight. A casual search of A380+inaugural+"Singapore Airlines" produces 29,200 hits. A search for A380+inaugural+"Singapore Airlines"-SQ380 produces 26,400 hits. And A380+inaugural+"Singapore Airlines"+SQ380 produces just 2,820 hits. Russavia takes my casual search literally when I decided to google "SQ380", yet decides to skirt the possibility of "SQ380" not even appearing in many of these articles discussing this topic.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At the moment, only the "Inaugural flight" section of the article actually discusses the flight itself, the rest concerns SQ and the A380 in general. If the focus is to be kept on the flight, the extraneous material should be removed; if the focus is to be expanded beyond it, a better name is required. Jpatokal (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI see that there is room for expansion on discussing the flight, but some background information will also help the reader.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus A380 with a mention in Singapore Airlines. -- RattleMan 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep it's a historic flight that is clearly notable, and worthy of its own article. I don't see the value in redirecting this to the A380 article, because this one only talks about this particular flight, and the A380 one is already long enough. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't "only" talk about the flight — as noted above, a good three-quarters are duplicated from elsewhere and/or about SQ's A380 program in general. Jpatokal (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe so-called "duplicates" are clearly necessary to provide context to the reader, both in explaining the significance of the aircraft's production and delivery, and the impact of the aircraft's introduction to the airline. This is perfectly normal in many other articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question Huaiwei, can you please provide examples of the other articles you talk about? --Russavia (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment To take a recent example, Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The correlation between this article and the Benazir Bhutto assassination is, IMO, erroneous as their were several notable events in the timeline previous to the assassination which are relevant to the assassination, and which likely paid their part in the assassination itself, a background is totally appropriate to the event. Also, the assassination itself received coverage for days/weeks after the event itself, and has had ramifications elsewhere, all of which are directly related to the assassination. The information provided in the B.B. article clearly provides context to the assassination, whereas that in this article does not; note the total lack of PR-type language in the B.B. article --Russavia (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment In other words, anything positive is considered "PR" and "Advertising", while anything negative is worthy as wikipedia articles in your books? I see. Meanwhile, what kind of "erroneous" correlation is there, when you only asked for an illustration of articles requiring a background summary, which may duplicate content from another article? I left you with the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article just to see if you know how to analyse the article, and boy, you went completely out of focus in actually attempting to justify that article's inclusion instead! Well since you decide to digress, have you ever realised that the very arguments you charge against the Singapore Airlines Flight 380 article can aptly apply to the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article? Why don't you launch an AfD on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus A380#Entry into service. Simply put, there is no justification to have complete articles in three, or more, places. I could support keeping this article if I believed that the other two articles would forever remain as links here in a single sentence about the flight. We need to get away from including identical information in multiple articles. This creates maintenance nightmares and conflicting information in different articles. Singapore Airlines should also link to Airbus A380#Entry into service. Keep the information in one place! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your suggestion is contradictory. If your concern is to keep the information in one place, why then are you advocating this article to be a redirect, when that will result in information appearing in both the A380 and Singapore Airlines articles? Kindly be reminded that the first flight is operated by Singapore Airlines, and it is the airline which made the flight more significant than it already is via its intensive marketing efforts. Did Airbus arrange for the first flight to be a full-charity flight with tickets sold by auctions? Did Airbus offer complimentary gifts for the passengers? Did Airbus organise the send-off and reception ceremonies, and did it promote the first flight in its website? None to all, because Singapore Airlines did all that and more. To insist that this article be redirected to A380 makes little sense to me, if it is to be a redirect at all.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be blunt, my suggestion is based on the constant bickering in the various articles related to SA. My suggestion is the only way that I see to keep the information in any encyclopedic form that is appropriate for this wiki. So while not the most logical on the surface it is the wisest move for the quality of the wiki. Sometimes conditions say to what would not normally be done since in that case it is the best choice. And I am suggesting that the information be primarily in one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus A380, the real subject of this article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus A380. I could have been argued into supporting an article on SQ's A380 program in general, but an article focused on the flight alone is too narrow. Jpatokal (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. Russavia has a long history of disputes with Huaiwei on Singapore Airlines-related articles and once frivolously mass-nominated many articles on Singaporean hotels for deletion. Considering the press coverage this has received, it is definitely notable. If there are issues with the article, improve it, but do not remove it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What exactly is my bias? Point it out from my previous nominations from here. It should also be noted that Huaiwei had no input on this article previously. And it should also be noted that you accused me on ANI of sockpuppetry, an accusation which you have neither followed up on nor apologised for. Now, if you can present an argument which is based on policy instead of WP:PA, then please present them. --Russavia (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but it may need to be trimmed down a bit. This long-awaited aircraft is likely to a a workhorse of the aviation industry. Accoringly its first commercial flight is historic and thus encyclopaedic. This is not a typical case of "famous for 15 minutes", though I susoect a lot of those manage to stay in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that anyone is disputing the need for the information. Just the need to have three articles with different versions of the same information. Can someone explain the need for this information to exist in at least three articles? If not, then merging is the smartest way to go. Leave a sentence with a link for articles that remain and a redirect from here to the section on the first flight in another article. What does the design of the SA fleet have to do with the first flight? It is not something that should be covered here. How does the SA selection of engines affect the first flight? This article really deserves an advert tag in it's current state. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Between the information equally divided between two articles, and being centrally located in one article with brief mention in two articles, which one sounds more sensible to you?--Huaiwei (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the work horses of the aviation industry are aircraft such as Douglas DC-3, Antonov An-2, Boeing 737, Tupolev Tu-154, yet none of these articles have the need (nor desire I imagine) to have such an article. With a single aircraft in service, it is way too early to call it a workhorse, and once other aircraft are delivered there will be a "big deal" factor. If it is that important to document, as mentioned above, this flight is part of the history of the aircraft, not the other way around, and a PR-spammy-advertorial cum-news article does not belong on WP, perhaps on Wikinews, but I would expect that the same policies are in place to rid their articles of the PR-spammy-advertorial content. --Russavia (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Would you not agree that your comment has basically degenerated (once again) to nothing more than WP:OTHERSTUFF? In fact, it fits the bill exactly: We do not have an article on <the first flight of Douglas DC-3, Antonov An-2, Boeing 737, Tupolev Tu-154>, so we should not have an article on this. Notability is not established by what you define as a workhorse of the aviation industry. It is established by the extent of coverage via third-party sources, which has been clearly demonstrated as meeting the requirements as per above, irregardless of the outcome of the plane's performance in years ahead. If an article has PR-spammy-advertorial content, than initiate an attempt to clean it up (unless you are able to do it yourself). You are once again reminded not to abuse the AfD process.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, my arguments are the same, those being WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. It should be remind that from WP:N#TEMP that a short burst of news reports on a particular subject, including this Afd, does not afford a subject long-term notability, and as such is better off being covered at Wikinews, not on Wikipedia. --Russavia (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment So care to explain your own comments on the non-existence of other first flights then? It is your own comments we are talking about here, mind you. And I find it very interesting that you should quote WP:N#TEMP, because it actually supports the existence of this article: If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. This article has met the general notability guideline easily, in that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as well illustrated above. Once again, our friend Russavia attempts to reinterpret wikipolicies in selective ways to suit his agendas.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep historic, sufficient coverage worldwide. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:N#TEMP states that a short burst of news reports does not afford a subject long-term notability, therefore it is before off being covered at Wikinews, not on wikipedia. --Russavia (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:N#TEMP states that once a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic. Therefore there is no need to show continuous news articles on the same flight several months or years later. If anything which appears in Wikinews is not encylopedic, then I would question the existance of practically thousands of articles covering historical events. Obviously, the true intent of WP:N is completely lost in the warped mind of Russavia desperate to rid this encyclopaedia of anything he has a personal distaste with.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Comments erased due to yet another personal attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strange why a cancellation notice was added when no comment was added in the first place. As for my allerged "personal attacks", Russavia's own actions simply backs up what I just said.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huaiwei, that was totally out of line. I suggest withdrawing your comment and apologizing. Jpatokal (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Evidence continues to mount against a user's disruptive means of editing, and even as we speak as illustrated above. A double AfD nomination of an SIA-related article done sneakily by group nominating another article would probably have been missed by people less aware of the entire situation. He can attempt to try to cover up his tracks, but we shall see.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ad hominem attacks in an AFD discussion are in themselves disruptive. Please stay civil. Jpatokal (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It should be noted that the above editor believes I have it out for the little-red dot, and it has NOTHING to do with any policy, and the fact that certain airline articles are spiralling out of control, and it also has nothing to do with the above editor being somewhat responsible for this due to his inability to abide by concensus, and various other issues. The modus operandi of the above editor is to resort to personal attacks at any opportunity, as is evidenced by various disputes he has been in, including those which resulted in him being put on probation and banned from editing certain articles for a lengthy period of time. What the above editor fails to see is that quite a few occasions other editors from the general community have agreed with my Afd nomination, resulting in article deletion or redirection, and that I could hardly hide the other nomination as I had to Afd all 3 articles openly. But when one can't argue against the argument, they attack the person, and this is commonplace, hence why I removed my above comment and placed a struck out comment, as I have no interest in discussing and reasoning with such a person. --Russavia (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please refrain from ad hominem attacks in an AFD discussion and stay civil — I'm getting very tempted to call an RFC on both of you. Jpatokal (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just caught you lying, Russavia. You have never removed a comment. My comment above was followed by two edits from yourself, one of which has stayed [3] and is not related to the above comment, while the second was the addition of that "strikeout" comment without actually striking out any existing commentary[4]. I would demand that you come clean with your actions.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Lying how? As I said, I had several unsubmitted comments typed out in response to you, which I then removed and placed what I placed, as I have no interest in discussing in response to WP:PA, and if I did post what I had typed out, I think I might have been subjected to 20 life sentences. And in response to Jpatokal, please do so, I have no problem with that. --Russavia (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • So just for the fun of it, what was the comment you were meaning to post? I promise at the most 10 life sentences, a hefty discount of 50%!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all keep arguments canvassed. Manderiko (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus 380 where this information is covered. This flight is mainly notable for being the maiden voyage of that aircraft. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And why redirect it to Airbus 380, and not to Singapore Airlines?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He just told you: "This flight is mainly notable for being the maiden voyage of that aircraft." That is, any notability is due to it being the first flight of the A380, and not because it's a Singapore Airlines flight. (Which is why I also support redirecting to Airbus 380.) Jpatokal (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I am obviously questioning that logic. Is Airbus going to be able to launch that flight without any airline operating the aircraft? It has been pointed out repeatedly that the flights notability is established not just because of the aircraft, but also because of the airline. If an article on a flight operated by an airline gets redirected to the aircraft article, I suppose an article like Pan Am Flight 103 shall be redirected to the Boeing 747 article if it becomes a redirect?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pan Am Flight 103 is not notable for being a Pan Am flight or for being flown on a Boeing 747, it's notable because it was blown up by terrorists, and the WP convention is to name such incidents after their flight numbers instead of, say, a tail code like "Boeing 747 N739PA".
        • Anyway, to me it seems fairly tautological that any notability of the first flight of the A380 is due it to being the first flight of the A380. I see you alone argue that having SQ operate the flight makes it somehow more notable than it would otherwise have been, but this seems rather hypothetical, as there's no way to know what another airline would have done with the opportunity. Jpatokal (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That I am the only one who bothers to voice out a logical flaw is not much of a concern to me, for wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not need to imagine what it would be like if another airline does the same thing, for it is clear that there is much publicity on the first flight thanks to many factors which are actually not aircraft-related. The way tickets were sold for a charity cause, the new suite class introduced by SQ (that the airline introduced rules against certain acts in that adjoining bed was the talk of the town!), the ameneities provided, services offered, the flight crew, the ceremonies and mementos, and even the passenger list (one was apparantly a rather notable figure in airliners.net and the crew threw her a birthday party on board)...are all of these related more to the aircraft or the airline which organised everything to make it especially memorable and noteworthy? Many who say it should be redirected to the Airbus A380 article are also the ones who simply drop a "as per nom" comment. I wonder if each of them has actually thought it through before commenting, or if they are simply adopting a herd mentality.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep seems notable and historical, but I'd be happy with a merge to Airbus 380 too Hobit (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.