Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 4 November 2010

Qantas Flight 32

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

Too recent (Essay I know) but also Wikipedia isn't a news site. This is yet to be investigated and will be sometime before a cause of the failure of one engine. Bidgee (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not too recent, already landed. Cause of something not yet know does not mean it is merely news.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanstra (talk • contribs)

It is recent, it happened a few hours ago and the cause will not be known for 6 months or more. Bidgee (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And 6 months later its ancient history, at which time only Bidgee thinks it is not news any more.--Advanstra (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree! Elmao (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was an uncontained engine failure. Whilst it was the first major incident to befall the A380, it is not serious enough to justify a stand-alone article. Information about the incident could be included in the Airbus A380, Qantas and Singapore Changi Airport articles. I've started discussion on this at Talk:Airbus A380#Incident - 4 Nov 2010. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty serious for the airline and aircraft - and for Australian Aviation (maybe not "Holland" aviation). Many stand alone articles have less serious incident (you need examples?). Give the article some time and space for others to contribute, i'll support to delete it myself less than everybody in Australia remembers it in a day or two.--Advanstra (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - endorse MJR's statement. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It is isn't even an accident. No fatalities, no casualties ... Every little aircraft malfunction does merit an stand-alone article. A mention in the A380 article would be ample. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Article creation appears to be a premature case of recentism. No prejudice to recreation if anything notable actually comes out of this. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any valid reason for deleting this article. Firstly, it is the first major incident attributed to a specific type of aircraft, and it has now seen the grounding of the type within one airline's fleet. Further, each of the points within WP:NOTNEWS can be easily countered or have no validity given the nature and veracity of the incident. Further, standing practice is that articles for all accidents of a significant nature, regardless of if they are air, plane, sea or rail start within hours of their occurrence, despite the recentisim points raised, and the information within them develops over time. Having the article provides the space for the article to develop over time, and helps to give articles structure and form. Deletion of this article would only seek to create problems down the track. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:INCUBATION if you want to develop the article over time. Otherwise, it is covered by WP:NOTNEWS presently and does not belong here. This is no special exemption for accidents (and this was not even an accident!). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted and anyone wants it userfied, I'll be happy to oblige. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to expand further on keep, and cite WP:AIRCRASH as a further reason for keeping the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation currently meets two of the six criteria for notability, being that this is the First, deadliest, or most significant accident for the type, and Suspension - all or a significant proportion of activities by an airline are suspended, or part or all of their fleet is grounded. The guidelines for Aviation crash notability have been stable since early 2009, and considering the article falls within the guise of that project - I would submit they are the experts on what determines notability for this class of article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly on WP is it "standing practice is that articles for all accidents of a significant nature, regardless of if they are air, plane, sea or rail start within hours of their occurrence, despite the recentisim points raised, and the information within them develops over time."? To my knowledge, that's not a practice WPAIR/WPAVIATION has ever used. It would be useful to see some written guidelines to that effect, as it would save us a lot of time and effort on the dozens of aviation accident AFDs MJR and I have collectively participated in! - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Thewinchester (talk · contribs) has !voted (bolded) keep twice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook NotNews and recentism. I totally disagree that deletion of this would "seek to create problems down the track" - a claim not substantiated with any examples of how it might do so. No hull loss, no crash, no deaths... not notable. Str Pby (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death/crash as an indicator of notability - Are you serious? The lack of deaths or a crash makes an incident not notable? Its notability is virtually assured by the fact that a trans-national investigation involving authorities from at least eight jurisdictions is taking place. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's ALWAYS several organisations involved in any incident like this. The airline, the manufacturer, the government air safety bodies of both and those of nations involved. BFD. --Pete (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is definitely a serious incident and deserve its own page for the details. Let the page be there. In the mean time, it can be edited as and when the details and investigation results are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkurniawan (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFDs generally run for a week, so there'll be time to improve it and see if it proves to be notable in during that time. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, From the infobox - "Injuries 0, Fatalities 0". HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of deaths and/or injuries does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. Let's get away from that idea please. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Injuries 0, Fatalities 0" does not make a case for deleting any article (thank goodness or most of wikipedia deleted), "Injuries 0, Fatalities 0" is a reason for not including it in List of Qantas fatal accidents. oh I am fighting too many edit conflicts. --Advanstra (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - article is clearly premature Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At what point do you think it is no longer 'clearly premature'?--Advanstra (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the immediate outcome is irrelevant. To echo what others have said, it's the investigations that will take place and the outcome of the A380 itself. Thenthornthing (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No fatalities or injuries. A note in the A380 article is needed, but not a whole article! There was a similar incident in August involving a QF B744 and SFO but no article on that one either. Looking at the first incident with the B777, we don't have an article, and only a very fleeting indirect reference in the B777 article. --Pete (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Well being a similar incident, the A380 is, at the moment, a much more high profile airplane. Every delay and little incident are being reported. Additionally, unlike that incident, this Qantas one is already having some sources, such as this BBC article, question the safety of A380 project, its impact on Airbus and on Rolls Royce. While I still think it is a little bit to early to create the page, I believe in 24 - 48 hours many similar articles will appear. If this does occur I think the event becomes notable to merrit its own article, until then I'll hold my judgment. Ravendrop (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's newsworthy - aviation incidents of this nature generally are - but hardly notable enough for a specific article about a scheduled flight where there were no injuries, no hijackings, no great fuss or delay. It's relevant, as other editors agree, to the airline and the aircraft, and possibly to the engine. We'll know more in due course. None of the arguments I've seen here are convincing enough for me to change my mind, and in fact some of the comments appear a little too strident, leading me to suspect that if the accident had happened to a Boeing, as in the two incidents I mentioned above (unrecorded in Wikipedia), the same editors might be urging a different outcome. --Pete (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, this applies as well to all aviation and airlines related articles, Qantas is no exception too! Having said that, since there was an explosion in one of the engines, it should be a wee bit notable enough to add in the parent article of Qantas or Airbus A380. However, as I've said... this article is in itself too weak to stand on its feet per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. No point pushing and fighting the policy, mate. IF we make this an exception, soon there would be a flood of such articles hanging everywhere on WP. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines -- "As noted in Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - here are some examples i've found to meet this: Australian media incl ABC, CNN, BBC, newspapers (online versions, the paper versions should have them in a couple of hours, let me know if there not), ATSB website homepage. The Qantas website too. I dont consider theres a need to dissect the whole guideline. I'd consider that a waste of time because because it would only confirm that its notable. --Advanstra (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you refer to WP:EVENT, which explicates, arguably supersedes, WP:GNG in this situation. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Advanstra: Mate, its best you don't fight as you have been observed to be doing, you will only attract more of the opposite. Work with us towards a solution and if that is not possible, then a compromise. Whatever you do, don't fight. Alright? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt consider it to be personal attack as theres nothing specific to yourself. Anyway no attack was intended, but to ease things i will rephrase the comments and make them more readable and neutral.--Advanstra (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Not everthing that Qantas does that is reported in the press deserves a WP article. No casualties. Engines fail on aircraft every week. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Thewinchester. Jonchapple (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as all news companies have this on their front page. Also "the first major incident attributed to a specific type of aircraft" << as previously stated. Elmao (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you should take a closer look at the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would strongly argue against deletion of this article. It is a very relevant incident (reportedly, the wing itself got penetrated by debris). It had a lucky outcome, but the potential ramifications are huge. Let's keep the article and use it to collect and organize further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.4 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Firstly, I have to apologise if it offends anyone and I hate to say this but whenever an unknown IP editor open their mouth on AfD, I tend to shout sockpuppetry or vote fraud. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This absolutely deserves a mention in the A380 article because it is grounding Quantas' fleet, and possibly warrents a mention in the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 article if RR takes any action (redesigned part, grounding the engine, etc), but it doesn't need its own article. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that deleting this article is unwarranted. This is currently the most significant incident affecting the A380 (criteria A1 in WP:AIRCRASH) and has caused Qantas to ground its entire A380 fleet (criteria A5). The incident has been reported in Australian, British (eg [1]) and Canadian (eg [2]) media, as well as on newswires (eg [3]) and appears to have triggered significant falls in Airbus and Rolls-Royce shares (according to the Reuters link above) as well as Qantas shares. Failures within commercial jet engines are supposed to be contained within the engine and not allow debris to be ejected from the sides of the engine - whereas QF32 suffered damage to one wing and lost a significant part of the engine cowling. Lack of injuries or fatalities is welcome but does not affect the significance of the incident. --PeterJeremy (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTNEWS. It's worthy of a sentence in the A380 or Qantas article. An airplane made an emergency landing this morning. "Injuries-0, Fatalities-0" pretty well sums it up. Thank God that it didn't become a notable incident. Trust me, by 11 November, this will not be news anymore. Mandsford 13:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This incident has been widely covered in the media, and has resulted in Qantas grounding its entire fleet of A380s. For such a high-profile aircraft, this is likely to be considered a large scale incident at Boeing, Rolls-Royce and Qantas. This would be like (imagining it occured today) the article on American Airlines Flight 96 being deleted hours after the incident occured. Only two years later, 303 people were killed in Turkish Airlines Flight 981. Only several years into commercial service, and tha A380 has had an incident, and it is my opinion from the reaction from Boeing and (yes, silly to take the opinion of the media into account) the media, are treating this as though it could be an underlying problem with the design of the aircraft. Therefore, I think this should not be counted as a minor incident, but as one that may be important in future sales of the A380. wacky wace 13:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but the A380 is an Airbus aircraft, not Boeing. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS Justin talk 14:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The incident does not meet WP:AIRCRASH - which I will quote verbatim - "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline" Criteria A1 (first in type) and A5 (grounding) are both in the same section, meaning that this info is more appropriately included in the A-380, RR Trent and Quantas pages, rather than it's own article. And while AIRCRASH is just an essay, it is the only current go-to project specific information for informing on the WP:EFFECT portion of the WP:EVENT Guideline, which is the site-wide consensus backed interpretation of the GNG presumption and WP:NOT#NEWS policy for breaking news type articles, which this clearly is. And while this incident is for obvious reasons getting global coverage, it is far too early to say with any confidence or even proof, that this incident is not a basic violation of NOT#NEWS by meeting the WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE clauses of EVENT. Even in terms of WP:DIVERSE, the case is weak (and no, in depth coverage in sources like the Aviation Herald as well as coverage in the news, does not count as diversity for air incidents.) MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this incident isn't even the "first accident" - BBC: "The closest the airliner has come to a similar incident was in September 2009, when a Singapore Airlines A380 turned around in mid-flight and returned to Paris after one of its four engines failed." Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikinews is thataway. Grsz¹¹ 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I don't care that this is too recent, that Wikipedia is not a news site or whatever, removing the article now will only lead to its reinstatement later as information develops. As it so happens, the nature of Wikipedia means it is one of the best resources in my vast searching of the Internet for researching this type of incident - I immediately came here to read further technical and incident details, knowing there would be a page for this under the usual format Airline_Flight_Number. The article can be expanded later with the results of an investigation, whether they suggest there was a major fault or not. I am just about sick and tired of Wikipedia users reducing themselves to petty arguments over an article on valid topics and users unfamiliar with the site (like me) quoting hundreds of "policies" about what can or cannot be written. I would urge someone to pick fault with the factual information of the article discussed here, because that it is - completely factual. Factual is what Wikipedia does best; I can understand opinion pieces being debatable, but factual information is just that. I wouldn't even consider that article a stub; it is already on the path to being a real encyclopaedia article, unlike most of the other "stubs" on the site. Why don't you spend some time chasing the other articles on Wikipedia which aren't noteworthy and only contain a line or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.241.118 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why don't you learn to assume good faith? We have our policies and guidelines for a reason. If you "don't care" about them, then sorry, I don't see why your !vote should count. Closing admin please note: this is the IP's first edit. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable accident in terms of it being the first for the A380 series - no matter what way one looks at it, it passes WP:N even now, and will easily do so once the investigation is complete. Orderinchaos 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I've established above that this isn't the first recorded incident of engine troubles with the A380, see the BBC link provided. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It nearly meets criteria 1 (1st incident; ok maybe its the second) and 5 (the entire Quatas A380 fleet is grounded) It's been a top headline for half a day on the BBC. The a380 is a 'flagship' aircraft and incidents involving it are more notable than with other aircraft.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Right now, the world is talking about it! We do not want lives to be taken. Take this incident seriously. This is no joke. --SinSQ800-805 on Singapore Airlines 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:36, 4 November 2010 edit SinSQ800-805 (talk \| contribs) 175 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:37, 4 November 2010 edit undo SinSQ800-805 (talk \| contribs) 175 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 86:		Line 86:
	*'''Keep'''. It nearly meets criteria 1 (1st incident; ok maybe its the second) and 5 (the entire Quatas A380 fleet is grounded) It's been a top headline for half a day on the BBC. The a380 is a 'flagship' aircraft and incidents involving it are more notable than with other aircraft.--[[User:Johnsemlak\|Johnsemlak]] ([[User talk:Johnsemlak\|talk]]) 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)		*'''Keep'''. It nearly meets criteria 1 (1st incident; ok maybe its the second) and 5 (the entire Quatas A380 fleet is grounded) It's been a top headline for half a day on the BBC. The a380 is a 'flagship' aircraft and incidents involving it are more notable than with other aircraft.--[[User:Johnsemlak\|Johnsemlak]] ([[User talk:Johnsemlak\|talk]]) 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

	*'''Keep''' Right now, the world is talking about it! We do not want lives to be taken. Take this incident seriously. This is no joke		*'''Keep''' Right now, the world is talking about it! We do not want lives to be taken. Take this incident seriously. This is no joke. --SinSQ800-805 on Singapore Airlines 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)