Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flights 7 and 8

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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 04:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flights 7 and 8[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is now only the seventh-longest flight in current service, and the mantle of "longest flight in the world" gets passed around so much that the sources for this article are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. I propose to redirect to Longest flight; however when I did this it was reverted, so I am taking it here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete it - it once was for a time the longest flight in the world and fortunately no one has been silly enough to create an article for other such transitory longest flights. This article does not really have anything in it that you couldn't also write about any of the hundreds of thousands of routine daily flights which do not, rightly, have articles. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Firstly, if the nominator is after a merge discussion, that should have been raised at the talk page, not via AFD. Secondly, I don't see how this article is any different than a train route or something similar. The article is supported by plenty of external sources that discuss the flight, its development and how it came to be, so the route has been given significant coverage over the years, therefore meeting GNG, and a fair bit of the article is not about it being the previously longest flight anyway. Most flight routes don't have articles (and rightly so), but there are some that have received significant enough coverage that do. Bookscale (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a keep from me. Bookscale (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources thus passing WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not have to have ongoing coverage. World's longest regularly scheduled commercial flights for a few years is a nice claim of significance. feminist (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. It broke a world record, has significant coverage, and the nominator doesn't even support deletion, they want redirection. The article satisfies the WP:GNG and deserves a spot. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AmericanAir88 and definitely per WP:NTEMP. The subject was definitely significant in the past, and just because it no longer holds a record doesn't automatically detract its notability. ToThAc (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be worth a one sentence mention in Qantas but not really noteworthy for a stand-alone article, with the advent of long-range versions of airliners the longest route changes regularly and this is really just trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except it isn't "trivia", it has been covered in multiple reliable sources (which are set out in the article) and clearly passes GNG. This really reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bookscale (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2019 (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.