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. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KrisWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This was prodded and an admin has undeleted it. First and foremost WP is not a venue for advertising. We don't need to know that this entertainment system has 112 movies and 740 music CD's. The contents of this article covered succinctly at Singapore_Airlines#In-flight_entertainment_system_and_communication, still with the feel of advertising, but not like this - the company has a massive advertising budget, we aren't here to do this for free. What next? Singapore Airlines' fabulous peanuts. Russavia ^Dialogue 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, un-encyclopedic, advertising.--Frozenguild (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the history of this in-flight entertainment is actually quite notable. I believe there is enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. It certainly needs aggresive pruning and better sourcing. But Krisworld was and perhaps is an industry leader and really set the standard for inflight entertainment. Singapore Airlines has consistently been ranked very highly for its ammenities and is reknowned for its services including in-flight entertainment. I'm not sure how big a deal it is now, as I think other airlines have improved their offerings to compete, and I haven't kept up with that kind of thing nor had the opportunity to fly internationally in many years, :( but I believe the history is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The claim that an article reads like an advertisement is not an argument for deleting it; it's an argument for rewording it and/or making a more neutral choice of facts to include/exclude from the article. The claim that an article has unnecessary details is not an argument for deleting it; it's an argument for removing those details. As for the notability guidelines, I don't really get them, but if we get a consensus that it's not notable, then at least keep this article as a redirect. However, a quick Google search suggests that there's no way that will happen if someone works on this article properly. Brian Jason Drake 11:48, 9 April 2009 (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.