Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1

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 keep. Most editors for keeping, appealling to a guideline carries more weight than appealing to an essay Wily D 08:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 1[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Plane was not written off, no serious injuries according to the accident report. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 23:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources to meet WP:N. This was the most significant accident for a national airline famous for its safety record (now 2nd to QF32). At worst, merge to QANTAS#Airline_incidents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the excellent advice at WP:AIRCRASH. This was a minor incident. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large aircraft with 410 people on board. Highly notable per WP:GNG. If the absence of fatalities renders this non-notable then US Airways Flight 1549 is also non-notable. Dolphin (t) 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of fatalities is not the only concern. There is also the fact that the aircraft was not written off - which you seem to have ignored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - VH-OJH was not written off, but it could have been, so extensive was the damage. However, that would have done serious damage to Qantas's reputation so it was a case of get it flying again regardless of the cost. WP:AIRCRASH does not mandate hull loss - for airline articles it says hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. OJH was out of action for a long time (7 months?) and the repair is rumoured to have cost $100m. Those things in themselves make the accident extra noteworthy. I will try to find a reliable source for the duration and cost of the repairs. Dolphin (t) 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Read what you wrote, would have, could have, rumored. Conjecture and alternate happenings that didn't occur. A 727 could have crashed[1] a mile from my home in 1996, but it didn't happen. And its not notable for a standalone article....William 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - An ex-employee told me that the final repair cost exceeded the value of the plane. It is notable due to the significant direct coverage it received. Try searching for "qantas bankok accident". The page view statistics are reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. What the ex-employee said is known as WP:OR. As for the page view statistics, WP:POPULARPAGE applies....William 15:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Not OR, but unverified. This article, http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/how-qantas-became-the-safest-airline, contains the reference to $100 million to repair the aircraft, and being a 2011 article, it demonstrates ongoing interest in the incident. If you don't like page view statistics, then we can stick with WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable for a stand alone article, nobody killed, aircraft returned to service just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "bad day at the office" usually doesn't involve a 747 with 410 people on board careening off a runway. Even by airline pilot standards, a "bad day at the office" would be an ATC-ordered holding pattern causing a half-hour landing delay. --Oakshade (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the above, this actual "Bad Day at the Office" recording has been very popular on the pilot forums. --Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG with very significant coverage. It was written about years afterward, as late as 2010.[2] [3] WP:AIRCRASH is simply an essay. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Qantasplanes (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the airframe was a constructive total loss. At the time, this was Qantas' most significant incident involving a jet-engined aircraft, and it is currently the second most significant incident. Whilst a large number of fatalities equals notability, a lack of them does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is this incident any different than this one[4] that ended up getting deleted[5]. Plane overshoots runway, no fatalities and no serious injuries, but the aircraft was written off. You voted for delete too....William 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I !voted for the information to be retained elsewhere within Wikipedia. That airframe was not a constructive loss, this one was. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to note VH-OJH is still flying for Qantas it flew yesterday on the QFA64 from Johannesburg to Sydney. MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though it might only be considered a minor incident to aviation buffs, it clearly passes the WP:GNG due to reams of third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep major incident; passes GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the article is also under rename discussion, see Talk:Qantas Flight 1 -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident has attracted significant, and sustained, coverage in the Australian media. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reminder that WP:AIRCRASH is an essay offering advice, not policy. The incident passes WP:GNG and extensively covered in a ton of reliable sources. It's coverage (and hence notability) is derived not just from the amount of damage received, but also because of the infrequency of such incidents with this particular airline. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:14, 5 September 2012 (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.