Deletion of List of Singapore MRT disruptions

Comment: as other have said, this falls under  The number of hits a page gets is irrelevant, topics are supposed to be encyclopedic, not popular
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This definitely falls under . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BADIDEA)

Comment: The topic is notable; for example, see ''http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2117027/singapores-embarrassing-metro-disruptions-offer-salutary Singapore’s embarrassing metro disruptions''; ''http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/experts-call-for-more-measures-after-mrt-disruption Experts call for more measures after North-South Line MRT disruption''; ''http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/6-tips-surviving-next-mrt-breakdown 6 tips for surviving the next MRT breakdown''.  Editors who |don't like reading about this are not required to do so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: 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, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)