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 delete. None of the keep votes addressed the concerns that this failed the policy of WP:NOTNEWS, and relied solely on the notability guideline, when notability was used as only one of the rationales for deletion. The weight of the arguments in discussions is typically given to guidelines over policies, and while there can be disagreement as to when NOTNEWS applies, those supporting keeping in this discussion did not explain why this article was not covered by it. Because of that, the strength of the arguments in this case is for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT disruptions[edit]

List of Singapore MRT disruptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ridiculous list of every little delay on the citywide train network. Not notable whatsoever. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The pages 2011 and 2015 MRT breakdowns (each had its own article) were merged into the article for convenience.

• Keep and cleanup afterwards Most of the disruptions were high-profile ones, with Wife coverage in the news. Regarding its notability, it is currently one of the hottest topics in Singapore now, especially after the Joo Koon rail accident.

Delays are NOT high profile. Who wants to read a whole article on incidents of train delays, seriously??? Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The page gets good traffic and thousands of people read it on some days. Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's irrelevant for the discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajf773 introduces the issue by asking "Who wants to read...?" It seems that plenty of people want to read this; many more than read his own articles such as New Zealand State Highway 22. "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Andrew D. (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of views per day has no bearing in AfD discussions. WP:POPULARPAGE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is based upon WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTCRUFT. The first of these does not seem to be relevant and the second is a worthless essay equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As there's no case to answer, we might as well look at the significant features of the page, including the fact that its average readership is about 75 per day, which is quite good. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This IS WP:LISTCRUFT. Delays on public transport are a regular occurrence and not notable, nor is a list of every single news report one can find for one particular transit network. Ajf773 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:LISTCRUFT is WP:CRUFTCRUFT – worthless opinion. To delete something, a strong policy-based reason is required. Andrew D. (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic and this article is not. Ajf773 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your above comments, the delays and disruptions are high profile, and as I said earlier, each small one gets wide press coverage and media attention. -1.02 editor (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The only entry on that entire list that is notable and received significant coverage is Joo Koon rail accident. Reported delays and planned disprutions are NOT notable and a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk)

• Not true, each one of the delays in 2016,7&8, the 2011, 2015 major disruptions each has press coverage, some more than the others (based on severeness) 1.02 editor (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• According to you here's an example of a major disruption:: Monday, January 19 @ 3:20PM to 3:30PM - Train services were delayed on the North South MRT Line between Admiralty MRT Station and Yishun MRT Station, in the direction towards Marina South Pier MRT Station. A service delay for 10 painstaking minutes!!!!!!! Ajf773 (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why I said cleanup in my first statement.1.02 editor (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a very useful and noteworthy list to keep track of the performance of MRT system, the backbone of Singapore's public transport system. Each year, millions of man-hours are lost due to train disruptions. This article serves as a means to measure the impact to businesses and commuters. It also serves to gauge the performance of the government in maintaining an efficient public transport system. Jane Dawson (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read earlier comments, incidents on transport delays are NOT notable. The article explains nothing of what you've described, the article was accessed from this one: History of the MRT (Singapore) and anything on that would be better to be included there. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• could you clarify yourself here? I'm a bit lost reading it. 1.02 editor (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nowhere in the article is there any mention of This article serves as a means to measure the impact to businesses and commuters. It also serves to gauge the performance of the government in maintaining an efficient public transport system. or anything remotely similar. Ajf773 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am just giving my opinion why this article is important. It doesn't have to state what I wrote. This list of MRT disruptions is highly remarkable given the high accolates that Singapore received for its "efficient" public transport system. What this article needs is a cleanup to trim unnecessary details. Information pertaining to disruption start time, duration, location, reason and impact would be sufficent. Jane Dawson (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, details of every single disruption is not notable and content relating to the efficiency of the transit network does not need a whole article assigned just for it. Ajf773 (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTOBSESSINGOVERMINUTEDETAILS, you name it. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that there are overall complaints about MRT performance is potentially notable news (although really, who doesn't complain?) but a blow-by-blow listing of every delay in the system is a huge dump of raw data which demands analysis to be meaningful, and I note under WP:INDISCRIMINATE item 3 specifically mentions "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", which is is an exact description of what we have here. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable; for example, see Singapore’s embarrassing metro disruptions; Experts call for more measures after North-South Line MRT disruption; 6 tips for surviving the next MRT breakdown. Editors who don't like reading about this are not required to do so. Andrew D. (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's you, no further comment required. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- as other have said, this falls under WP:NOTNEWS The number of hits a page gets is irrelevant, topics are supposed to be encyclopedic, not popular.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ajf773: if you don't mind I'll reduce the list to only major disruptions and delays and make it into an article format. if no one objects I'll also change the title to Singapore MRT Disruptionsmajor incidents afterwards.1.02 editor (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list like this, honestly, is like making a list of strikes on the London Underground, and it's really only a big thing in Singapore, while on a global standpoint it's not notable enough to warrant an article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. R22-3877 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete, or Keep, cleanup and move to something like "List of major Singapore MRT disruptions". Including every single delay both violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N, and is impossible since many of the minor delays can't be sourced anyway. The only solution I see that doesn't involve deleting this outright is to get rid of all the minor delays, and expand and focus on the major ones including those before 2011. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 09:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KN2731: Minor delays have been removed, currently in the process of moving things about. 1.02 editor (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @1.02 editor: in light of your work I think I'll strike my delete vote. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 09:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is notable, as demonstrated by Andrew D., and now that minor delays have been removed it is no longer an indiscriminate list. It can certainly be improved further (for one thing, what little there is on the impact of these disruptions is scattered around the article), but that is no reason to delete it. Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A large number have been removed but some still remain, even these incidents are not notable (a two hour delay is still pretty minor on a mass transport network). Only the ones with articles are worth mentioning. Ajf773 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if some are worth mentioning, aren't there enough grounds for keeping an article, even if I might agree that something like List of major Singapore MRT disruptions or even Singapore MRT disruptions (abandoning the goal of being a list and focusing on analysis) would be better? Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also this article Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) where all the notable incidents cross over. Mind you that list needs a clean up as well. Ajf773 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Count your blessings I was just reading that New York’s subway now has the worst on-time performance of any major rapid transit system in the world. Maybe there's some scope for an article listing the comparative performance of these services. I also notice that Broadway Junction (New York City Subway) is on the main page currently. Lots of fine detail in that page too. So it goes ... Andrew D. (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- This definitely falls under WP:NOTNEWS. We're not seriously considering having an article about individual train delays are we? Articles about plane crashes are one thing, but articles telling us a train was late because someone broke a window? Ridiculous. Imagine doing this for other cities: the one for Melbourne would be megabytes long by the end of the year. Then there's the fact that this article is subtly, but undeniably, non-neutral. Reading through it I got the distinct impression of a hit piece, especcially against SMRT Trains. This article is a terrible idea. Reyk _YO! 16:55, 31 January 2018 (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.