Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 692

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 Delete. I think the consensus is clear here Kevin (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 692[edit]

Non-notable. Even less notable than Qantas Flight 30, which is also a candidate for deletion. We do not care about every tiny incident that happens on a flight. This single paragraph could be placed on Qantas. Delete. BG (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable --Emperor Genius (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a news service. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not important, and does not warrant its own article by a longshot.Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Except this incident is not even worth a mention in the main Qantas article. If this minor malfunction didn't happen so close to Flight 30, would anyone have noticed? A routine turnback. No injuries, no serious damage to the plane. Not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. This is the end result when creation of articles such as Qantas Flight 30 is encouraged. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - I can understand Mattingbn's concern as well Satu Suro 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#NEWS. Given that this is a very minor incident it shouldn't be merged with Qantas - it's hardly rare for commercial airliners to turn back in flight due to a fault. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. BWH76 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do stop the attacks on flight 30. You are allowed to think that not notable as well, but they are miles apart as far as circumstances go. Now that's out of the way, back on topic: the article's only real claim to notability is the close proximity of the event to another more significant one. It may be worth a brief mention there ("when another Qantas flight, a 737 operating as flight 692, had pressurisation problems a few days later, some passengers refused transport on another Qantas plane due to the two events.") but no more. If they hadn't refused the alternative plane then this would have no link to that other flight at all, and such a tiny connection does not establish notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor event, probably occurs every day somewhere in the world. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more of a "copycat" article. Like Sandman says, this is not in the same league as Qantas Flight 30, which made front page headlines worldwide. Don't get the idea that you can write an article every time you hear of an airline incident. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Planes have to land for quick repairs all the time. This is nowhere near the same level as Qantas Flight 30 --T-rex 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a very NN incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (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.