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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refer to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination. The result was to keep, and my stand remains the same.--Huaiwei 09:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous Vfd arguments and result. Kappa 10:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Astrokey44 11:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Difficult to maintain, and contains nothing but original data from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, who runs the airport. People who are looking for such data won't consult an encyclopedia but the operating authority. Pilatus 11:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP != indiscriminate collection of information. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very indiscriminate listcruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of passenger destinations reachable from the airport in the article Singapore Changi Airport would be both far more maintainable and likely to be of interest. This level of detail is too detailed to be either maintainable or of general interest. Caerwine 07:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments To add on, a few points to make in response to the above comments, and from what has been discussed before:
  • Firstly, there has been a VfD for this article 4 months ago, and the result was a keep. Is there any good reason to AfD this again now? I hope admins may take note of this.
  • Secondly, as proven by just how many updates this article got since 4 months ago, no, it didnt need alot of maintanence as I have said earlier.
  • Thirdly, yes, the information is original from CAAS, because wikipedia is not meant to be an avenue for original research. I canot be churning up my own numbers from thin air (although I do my own simple maths in coming up with obvious data, for eg, mannually counting the number of flights per week). At the same time, it is not a wholesale reproduction of original data, because this table combines information found in the Airport site, CAAS's monthly and annual reports (which is not available free online and required a trip to its library, which is not open to the general public), plus counter-referenced data from publications by the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines and theInternational Air Transport Association, again from sources not neccesarily available to everyone for free.
  • Fourth, please explain "indiscriminate collection of information", when the sources and the work committed to compiling the above data has been explained.
  • Fifth, I do not see how people can decide for themselves what would be considered "usefull" or "interesting" topics for users of wikipedia. Do we have a policy in only writting articles which people will be assumed to be interested in? Not really, because we only do have one for writing useful articles. How would removing data make this site any more useful? When someone just wants to know the number of passengers flown between Singapore and Sydney per year, and how that compares with other city pairs out of Singapore, why should we deny this person the chance to see this information in wikipedia instead of turning to another source?--Huaiwei 12:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Quale 07:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a helper article for Singapore Changi Airport, and is not meant to stand on its own. Merging it with its main article dosent quite make sense either, so wikipedia looses helpful statistics to support its articles because of technicalities like this then any other reason?--Huaiwei 08:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Huaiwei. This is a helper article for an important air transportation hub. --Vsion 10:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This information is too specific for Wikipedia. The main article on Changi Airport should talk about the history and significance of the airport and then have external links to websites which contain this kind of specific consumer info. Singopo 06:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be surprised if someone starts saying information should be deleted from wikipedia for being too specific. Based on that theory, we should all abstain from being specific in the articles we write and strive for murkiness? There is nothing here to justify that this article should keep to certain aspects of its existance. How do you demonstrate "significance" without the data to back it up?--Huaiwei 16:04, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.