Deletion of Singapore Airlines fleet (2nd nomination)

Comment: NC does not directly limit article content, however,  itself does dictate whether the article itself is worthy for WP or not. Fleet lists of Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways International ('''remember, all 3 articles are included in this Afd''') are not notable, as notability is not inherited. Additionally, I do not believe that |article length of the main airline article can be a justifiable reason to keep any of these fleet articles, as the main airline articles are full of  (codeshare destinations, flight numbers, extensive promo on FFP, and other advertisting), and I am not the only editor who has this opinion on these articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SIZE||WP:CRUFT)

Comment: I think I know perfectly what Vegaswikian meant, while I am having problems understanding what you are trying to say. You constantly cite  and  as reasons for deleting these articles, without actually saying '''why''' other than stuffing us with , , , , , , OTINTERESTING comments. Do you have any evidence that "actual fleets have never been written about extensively by reliable sources"? I have seen independent scholarly books on Singapore Airlines with an entire chapter dedicated to their fleets. There are endless independent articles out there discussing on aircraft fleets, purchases, and movements. Aircraft purchases frequently make headlines. Just about every aircraft purchase by SIA in its entire history has been reported in the local newspapers, and I believe this is also true for most major airlines around the world. I am again rather surprised that someone of your proclaimed exertise in the aviation field could make such a declaration at this time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:ITSNOTABLE||WP:ITSA||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:WHOCARES||WP:USELESS||WP:NOTINTERESTING)

Comment: per Archtransit. I agree with his view that a good amount of potential could be added to the article with tons of |verifiable sources and make it much more encyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: So what you're saying is that the "keep" arguments in the last nom was basically everything listed in |Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? I'd have to say delete per nom, nothing more to be said here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)

Comment: That is not the way that Afds work Huaiwei, I have made a statement (whether that is right or wrong) that the fleets are not notable, and have based this statement on policy. It is your ''job'' as an editor (the main editor of the Singapore Airlines fleet I believe) to demonstrate notability by providing these reliable sources. If there are scholarly books which deal with this subject why aren't they cited in the main article, because the only sources referenced in the SIA article are 1 Singapore Airlines source, 2 aircraft manufacturer sources and 2 hobbyist sites (which whilst perhaps used within airline hobby circles would be pushing the envelope for being ''reliable sources''), and even then none of the referenced sources are anything more than directory-type listings, which is perhaps against #DIR
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: It is interesting to note that several delete arguments are just as guilty as what was brought up by the nominator. Also, perhaps you may want to elaborate on why the article is not notable. I may want to note that these articles are |lists, not full-fledged articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)