Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited
Source: 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 was no consensus. Merging, as always, remains an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The company is not notable on it's own, and given the nature of the company business it would not generate much notable news upon which the article can be expanded. Only 1 find in google news, and that is basically a press release. Russavia 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This user has nominated at least five Singapore Airlines-related articles in what appears to be personal crusade against "SIA Fanboyism [1]". Stubs, being stubs, have room to grow, and are not non-notable for being under developed. You found 1 result in Google news, but google search itself produces 1293[2]. Please do no establish notability using your own barometres.--Huaiwei 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I have nominated one Northwest category and one Cathay Pacific category, and I am sure there will be many more to come. And the reason I have nominated these SIA articles is because they should not be in wikipedia, as they are not notable entities, are not encyclopaedic, and they have no room to grow, hence why they are still stubs after some 2 years. So argue to keep on the merits of whether they do belong on wikipedia or not, not on some Singapore Airlines fetish which you seem to have, in which anything and everything to do with SIA needs its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)
- Russavia. Just curious, do you often use the word "fetish" whenever you disagree with someone on Afd? It's kinda odd why you use such a word. --Vsion 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I have nominated one Northwest category and one Cathay Pacific category, and I am sure there will be many more to come. And the reason I have nominated these SIA articles is because they should not be in wikipedia, as they are not notable entities, are not encyclopaedic, and they have no room to grow, hence why they are still stubs after some 2 years. So argue to keep on the merits of whether they do belong on wikipedia or not, not on some Singapore Airlines fetish which you seem to have, in which anything and everything to do with SIA needs its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)
- Keep notable company. I found 69 google news [3] including one from International Herald Tribune [4]. There are more than sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. --Vsion 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can a company which has 69 google news reports in the last 8 years truly be called 'notable' particularly when they are mainly press releases, and the true news articles which do mention the company do so only in passing? --Russavia 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is this page listed properly at the Afd to complete the nomination? Same question for the other similar Afds. --Vsion 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These articles compose a directory of Singapore Airlines subsidiaries, and nothing more. At best they can be listed in the the airline's article. Mangoe 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In what way is an article on a subsidiary a "directory"? If it needs to be repeated once again, these subsidiaries were actually listed in the said article but were moved to secondary pages to trim the overbloated main article. Your suggestion reverses earlier initiatives, and is not exactly a feasible idea.--Huaiwei 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the overbloated article is not suitable, then surely it could be said that a page which will never grow pass stub stage would not be suitable either. Perhaps it would be better to create a new article such as Singapore Airlines subsidiaries and present the information in that article, whilst still keeping individual articles on the truly notable subsidiaries such as SilkAir. The articles which could be merged into the subsidiary article would be:
- Comment. In what way is an article on a subsidiary a "directory"? If it needs to be repeated once again, these subsidiaries were actually listed in the said article but were moved to secondary pages to trim the overbloated main article. Your suggestion reverses earlier initiatives, and is not exactly a feasible idea.--Huaiwei 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- International Engine Component Overhaul
- SATS Security Services
- SIA Engineering Company
- Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited
- Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise
- Singapore Airport Terminal Services
- Singapore Flying College
- Tradewinds Tours and Travel
It would clean up the Singapore Airlines category that is for sure, and make such deletion noms less likely. --Russavia 19:49, 3 May 2007 (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.