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. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 30[edit]

Qantas Flight 30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I do not feel that the QF30 incident meets the notability criteria for accidents and incidents as per WP:AIRLINES. It was not a hull loss or any serious damage beyond economical repair. Not a single passenger was injured. It certainly pails in comparison to the Qantas Flight 1 runway overrun. There are two other discussions on this very page about similar incidents. We could include the numerous 747-300 incidents that have occurred but we don't. See discussion at Talk:Qantas#QF30 Incident Mvjs (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I nominate this article for DELETE per request. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There have been worst incidents then this and is still early days for it to be notable. ATM it's just typical media hype much like the heavy landing at Darwin Airport. No one as killed or severely injured, the aircraft didn't crash and it's repairable. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was only a minor incident. No one even got injured. Jackelfive (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. This can go into articles about the type of aircraft, airline etc as a sentence. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into Qantas --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Qantas, where it's already mentioned under "incidents and accidents". Indeed, the only significance of this might be that it happened at Qantas, which still has the same claim to fame that it did when Dustin Hoffman talked about it in Rain Man. As Qantas fatal accidents confirms, the Australian carrier has never had a fatality in its jet service, and hasn't had a fatal accident since 1951. Mandsford (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "merge" is that Qantas Flight 30 has already been removed from the Qantas article. So, at this point it's no longer "already mentioned," which really sucks for people that are coming to wikipedia for information =(. When people here about these things, they do come to wikipedia, and it's disappointing when they can't find the information they need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Response It was there when I posted, but I sympathize. We've all had to deal with the "jealous lover" editor. The solution, I've found, is to put the information back in, and on the edit summary, write something very prominent, like "Deleted Qantas Flight 30 information added back in". That way, when someone looks over the history of the article, they can see the information-- and they can also judge for themselves whether the person who took it back out is a control freak. Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a news site. Wikinews is a news website. Bidgee (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, wikipedia isn't a news site. It's an encyclopedia. But the magic of wikipedia occurs when a total newcomer can come to wikipedia and find the exact information or link to a source from something they thought they sort of remembered, but for the life of them couldn't. And in these cases, wikipedia can be far more effective and faster than a google or qantas.com or newspaper website search. That is truly magical, and completely appropriately encyclopaedic! (wish I knew how to emphasize or bold "encyclopedic." =)

  Try putting three apostrophes on each side great, huh?

• Delete This incident has not proven itself to be notable in the long-term as it hasn't resulted in any change of policy that can influence other aircraft. It doesn't have the criteria that WP:AIRLINES has for incidents and accidents either. Currently it is being influenced by media coverage as the incident has only just occurred in the past day, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is WP:AIRLINES a part of WP:POLICY? Plasticup ^T/C 16:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Less than 24 hours would seem to be a very short term in which to prove long term notability! I'd suggest giving it at least 6-12 months before any long term assessment can be made. Changes of policy in aircraft operation can take a while to be implemented after an incident. It is six months since the BA Flight 38 accident but that may still result in a change to the design of 777s (eg the fitting of louder evacuation alarms) 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is decided on the basis of consensus discussion. Our notability guideline is the most commonly used criterion, and as a guideline it is also not policy. If you want further thought, see WP:IAR. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why my first sentence states that I don't believe the incident has proven itself to be notable (yet) and is only thought to be so by sensationalist media drama. My WP:AIRLINES statement is in relation to its status as a major incident/accident. I suggest contributing to this Afd in a helpful manner instead of an utterly pointless one, thank you! NcSchu_(Talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If it turns out later that this is a symptom of a major weakness in the plane or the airline, we can re-add it, but with no injuries, it's not a notable incident.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this article to remain. It is reminiscent of the United flight from Honolulu to Auckland, and the Aloha flight from Hilo to Honolulu. Although fortunately there were no fatalities on the Qantas flight, it is important if it is a similar kind of failure, because metal fatigue fuselage decompressions shouldn't be occurring anymore now that there is knowledge from the previous incidences. It is also currently front page news on the New York Times webpage, which is significant. There is also no need to delete right away, as it just happened, and we will be finding out more information later which may add or detract from it's significance. So, please keep. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United flight from Honolulu to Auckland, and the Aloha flight from Hilo to Honolulu incidents are not the same as QF30. We don't know the cause of incident and is likely to take a month or so before we know. Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One important similarity, even if we do not yet know the exact cause, is that they are all decompressions. The United flight and this Qantas flight are both 747s. And, they are both flights over the Pacific Ocean. The NYTimes article at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26qantas.html?hp says "The Australian Air Transport Safety Board issued a brief statement on its Web site Friday, describing the forced landing as a “serious incident.”" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stating that it was a it was the same as “United flight”. AATSB Media Release. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the first line of the news release you kindly provided is: "The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was advised this afternoon of a serious incident involving a Qantas aircraft." Why is it necessary to jump the gun so quickly? http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_22.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk)

Oops, I don't know what happened there--it seems like a line was lost. I hope I didn't erase it by accident. Anyway, the NYTimes article never claimed the Oz Transport Safety Board media release said Flight 30 was the same as the United Flight. However they are both 747 transpacific services with a fuselage decompression necessitating an emergency landing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk)

States nothing about “United flight” and read NcSchu comment on the bottom of the page. Bidgee (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior of these 747 decompression accidents and incidents, Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (which was a Boeing 737) suffered an explosive decompression 15 minutes after it take off from Hilo International Airport in Hawaii which the fuselage had crippled on the air. The route was over the Hawaiian coast. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and United Airlines Flight 811 the cargo door failed in which the Qantas 747-400's didn't. Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're going to post here, please try to follow the same format as the rest of the voters, also, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a legitimate argument. Comparing this incident to others that are similar will not influence whether this article is kept or deleted. No two incidents are exactly alike and one incident doesn't influence another's notability. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, QF30 isn't the same as Aloha Airlines Flight 243 and United Airlines Flight 811 therefore shouldn't be used as an argument. Bidgee (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so maybe I shouldn't have brought up those other flights. But if comparisons to other incidents do not influence keeping or deleting this article, then please keep that in mind when looking at the first and 3rd votes for "Delete" at the top of the page! They all compared Flight 30 to other incidents as well, with: "It certainly pails in comparison to the Qantas Flight 1," and "There have been worst incidents then this" I believe Flight 30 is notable on its own without any comparison to other flights whatsoever, and even with only the initial information we have right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets the definition of Aviation accident, it is not just an incident. There's no need to rush to deletion. If further substantial references can't be developed over the coming days, it can be revisited. Most of our articles on accidents start during the day of the event and initially rely on news coverage, later adding more authoritative content.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not an Aviation accident. If it was the aircraft what have had more damage then what it has, didn't crash, had issues landing which it didn't. It's more of an Aviation incident then an accident. I would rather wait for the AATSB to complete it's report which will be at least a month or two (maybe more). Bidgee (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at the definition, please. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read the link above but you can't use an Wiki article (which needs more sources) to try and state it's an accident. ATM it's been classed as incident (See the AATSB Media Release which uses incident) Bidgee (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this accident or this one (from US NTSB site)LeadSongDog (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about QF30. Bidgee (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that The Flight Safety Foundation's aviation safety net calls it an accident too. The US Federal Regulation defining "Accident" and "Incident" is here. The ICAO's Annex 13 is available here at a nominal cost if you really want it.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First link is a Wiki and the second link is to do with US law which has nothing about QF30 and the same goes for the third. Bidgee (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We follow ICAO definitions, which you can see repeated on this ATSB page. I would be surprised if the ATSB doesn't upgrade the definition from Serious Incident to Accident during the course of their investigation, because the structural damage was not merely a fairing nor small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin. This is speculation though and as per my comments further down, I think this article satisfies notability in any case. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is nothing to indicate this event is particularly notable. There weren't even any fatalities (fortunately). While I disagree with the opinions of some that Wikipedia should never do articles on any breaking news stories, there's really nothing here to peg a viable article on. Had it crashed and all 300+ people died, then it would have become a notable air disaster. As it stands, it rates, at best, a paragraph in the Qantas airline article. The fact it has managed to keep its fatality-free record in intact even with such an incident is notable, but only as a footnote in the main article, not on its own. 23skidoo (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fatal accident in Boeing 747-400 history, Singapore Airlines Flight 006 which was a 747-400 bound from Singapore to Los Angeles via Taipei-Chiang Kai Shek. The plane was scheduled to take off because of the typhoon and it collided with a construction site between the runway. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Qantas' history and not the Boeing 747-400 history record. Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bidgee and the Admins. This flight had no fatalities, only Aloha 243 and United 811 had 10 fatalities and 103 injuries in two flights. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see a lot of people talking about "X many people weren't hurt" or "XYZ fell out of the plane". None of this is relevant. This deletion proposal claims that the subject is not notable. Unfortunately the nominator tried to show this by linking to a wikiproject rather than an actual wikipedia policy, and maybe that is why the discussion has become sidetracked. The purpose of this discussion should be to establish notability or lack thereof. Plasticup ^T/C 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: an explosive decompression is a (thankfully) rare occurrence, and to my mind that makes it notable. (That everyone survived perhaps contributes to the notability, rather than detracting from it.) There is a precedent for having articles on such cases (e.g. British Airways Flight 5390). Given that this only happened today, then obviously we will have to wait for reliable sources (as opposed to over-hyped media speculation etc.), and an official investigation to produce a report. The lack of patience shown by the deletionists concerns me here: we had the same with British Airways Flight 38 earlier this year, which was also quickly taken to AfD within hours of the accident. --RFBailey (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You shouldn't brand users (Such as deletionists) whether they're for or against. Also you should base your comments on a neutral point of view. BA38 isn't the same as QF30 and I'm sure this article could have waited until official investigation releases it's findings that way this article is about fact not media hype and spin. Bidgee (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV refers to only the content of articles. Comments should be referring to wikipedia policies, specifically the notability policy. So far no one (on either side) has made an argument based on official wikipedia policy. Plasticup ^T/C 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree and disagree. There are some ok statments but there are some that have I when this isn't about opinions. The above statment was for everyone and not just the above editor. Bidgee (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD was issued not just within 2 hours, but also within 6 edits of the original article. Strange? Over zealous? 82.69.27.224 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I would consider an explosive decompression, even one that resulted in the loss of no passengers or crew, quite notable. We aren't talking about a minor mechanical failure that caused the masks to drop, this plane suffered some major damage and as of yet it's not known whether it's due to some sort of mechanical flaw or a bomb - either of which would be notable. Ayocee (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bomb has been ruled out No Sign of Terrorism In Qantas 747 Blowout (ABC NEWS) and Qantas emergency landing could have been caused by spilled coffee (Telegraph). Bidgee (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence of terrorism or sabotage emerges; otherwise this is just a more-dramatic-than-most in-flight incident that resulted in no injuries. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Strong Keep - This is highly notable because explosive decompression had occurred, similar to United Airlines Flight 811. It shouldn't require the tragic death of a passenger for a catastrophic incident to be included! Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't have to have people killed but don't see how this is highly notable for an Encyclopedia ATM. Yes explosive decompression is rare but it has to be caused by something and we don't even know the caused by. Also we shouldn't base it on other articles such as UA811. Bidgee (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how it is notable? Does it not meet every element of WP:NOTABILITY? Plasticup ^T/C 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a cause, why it happened in midflight and not at take off, cost of repair, where it will be repaired and by who. ATM all we have is a small media release by AATSB and the rest is from the media but what are they basing it all on? Bidgee (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think that you understand the article deletion process. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. You will see that this article satisfies the requirements of significant, reliable, and independent coverage. Plasticup ^T/C 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the lack of a cause suddenly an issue? If we only wrote articles about cases where the cause was 100% certain, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. Seth ze (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: To me the article satisfies WP:NOTE easily and (although not as relevant) the comments on WP:AIRLINES as well anyway. The incident has - for the time being - been classed as a Serious Incident by the ATSB on the initial basic incident report. It involves not merely the loss of some fairing panels, but rather these appear to have been lost due to a significant rupture of the aircraft's skin. This rupture resulted in an explosive decompression, which is a rare and significant event. Obviously there will be a glut of media coverage at this time, but this includes signficant photographic evidence, video evidence, first hand passenger accounts and airport official accounts of the incident, on top of statements from Qantas and the ATSB. Regardless of the root cause and the inevitable ATSB report, this is already a article about a notable event. Regarding WP:AIRLINES - the event involved serious damage to the aircraft, satisfying one of the example criteria on that project page. Being repairable does not mean it is not serious damage. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upgrading my view to Strong Keep in light of the ATSB confirmation that the aircraft lost an oxygen cylinder in mid air. Regardless of this turning out to be cause or effect, this is an extraordinary circumstance at all levels - for Qantas, for the Boeing 747 and commercial flight in general. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I thought I wanted to point out that QF1 wouldn't that 'pale in comparison' because it wasn't written off either. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob.au. Addeum : BBC, CNN, NYT, Forbes. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for several reasons: 1) It's silly to say that someone has to die for an aircraft accident/incident/whatever to be notable; 2) Qantas has a tremendous record for flight safety and this certainly is noteworthy in that light; 3) There has been a good deal of buzz in the media about the event--enough to make a tiddlywinks tournament notable, 4) There seems to be a lot of "dancing" around notablity on the side of the deletionists for this article, and I don't dance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes things interesting Qantas plane suffered corrosion. I'm not a deletionist but someone who is yet to make up their mind. Bidgee (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, this isn't the place to discuss the event itself. That belongs on the article's talk page. This is the place to discuss whether or not Qantas Flight 30 meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Please stop spamming this AfD with information that belongs in the article. Plasticup ^T/C 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you just telling me? What about others who are doing the same? Assume Good Faith please! Bidgee (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so concerned about being (or called) a deletionist even when it is meant for no-one in particular? - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am? I said I've not made up my mind and interested at other thoughts, I didn't say that I was concerned about being called one. Bidgee (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am assuming good faith. Obviously you aren't editting maliciously (i.e. the opposite of good faith) and I am helping direct your efforts towards a useful goal. Plasticup ^T/C 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a spammer isn't helping nor is it good faith. Bidgee (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that your last few edits would have been better posted on the article's talk page. Here they are spam. That does not mean that you are a spammer. Forget it, I am not going to argue semantics with someone intent on being offended. Plasticup ^T/C 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

intent on being offended? I'm not but it's the way you said it! Bidgee (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I am surprised that this hasn't been kept under WP:SNOW. There are hundreds of independent, reliable sources referencing this event, and there will be thousands more before it is over. Plasticup ^T/C 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm surprised that you're surprised. Seven people urged a delete before anyone even said "keep". Mandsford (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not one of them gave a rational that referenced a wikipedia policy. Plasticup ^T/C 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like it's snowing now.... Mandsford (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are good and are improving, now makes it more notable then it was orginally. Bidgee (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Based on WP Aviation Style guide's Notability clause - It involves unusual circumstances, so speaks rohith. 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was lucky that nobody was killed or seriously injured! TurboForce (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This article meets the WP Aviation Style guide's Notability clause, and has good references (noting only a small amount of time has passed since the incident). It is also of a rare, and notable event. [as an aside - not related to the 'Strong Keep' argument, everybody 'SHOULD' have died on this flight. a 3m hole caused by explosive decompression is very lucky not to have caused a breakup like the Lockerbie incident]. Finally, it should be noted that this article was nominated for 'delete' when it was first created, and now is a very different article to when the article was created. I guess that is what happens when someone nominates an article for deletion during the first hours/minutes of development. This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qantas_Flight_30&oldid=227815023 Is the article nominated for deletion (within the first hour of creation). I think it would be safe to say that most Wikipedia articles are *less* well written / referenced than this within the first hour. I suppose this is what happens when someone trolls the new pages list for 'junk' pages, and destroy many pages that would have helped Wikipedia before they even start. :)Buckethed (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This wasn't a "mundane" accident such as a birdstrike or even terrorism, it was an unusual form of mechanical failure, with the implications for future safety procedures that implies. It's notable as being unusual for Quantas, for perhaps being related to recent concerns that Quantas aren't as spotless as they've previously been reported to be, as being an unusual cause of accident, and mostly for being a serious structural failure that was survivable by some robust engineering from Boeing (I have to move town now after saying anything good about Boeing) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This incident was probably more serious than Pan Am Flight 125 and no-one has suggested that should be deleted (yet!). If QF30 turns out to be another cargo door failure or similar problem with the Boeing 747 then this article might be very relevant to a series of articles about 747 faults/problems. I also agree that an article about a current event should not be up for deletion so soon after creation. At least give it until more is known about this incident and then think about deleting or merging this article. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough that it's on the CBS Evening News tonight as a "headline" story. If Katie Couric notices the "Midair Scare", that's proof enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Probably the closest that Qantas has come to a fatal accident since 1951. 82.69.27.224 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep For those who insist that it isn't WP Aviation Style guide's Notability clause, I suggest you read it again. Don't read between the lines. Read word for word. Planenut (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets all Wikipedia:NOTABILITY criteria. Following the investigation and any consequent actions taken it might turn out to be even more significant an incident than it appears at the moment.Richard Taylor (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am going to suggest once again that we evaluate this by WP:SNOW so we can get the item into In The News Plasticup ^T/C 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Delete) At the moment, it is a media exaggeration. Maybe when some hard information and evidence is released, which includes information that satisfies the final WP:AIRLINES criteria, the article could be recreated. But at the moment it is extremely hard for editors to shuffle through the fact and the fiction. It is no where on the realms of the United cargo door blow out. a) it proved malfunction of the cargo locking device that provoked and industry wide shake-up b) it was fatal enough that people got killed c) the cargo door blowing off as well as the side of the cabin sucking people out is different to a small hole in the fuselage. In regards to comparison the Qantas 1 runway overrun incident, I still maintain that this incident pails in comparison. An aircraft falling off the end of a runway into grassland colliding with ground equipment is much different from a small hole in the fuselage which obviously did not prevent a clean emergency landing. At the moment people are getting caught up in the hype of the media that a Qantas 747 suffered something out of the ordinary. Yes, something out of the ordinary happened. But this is one of many incidents a year worldwide that do not need to be included in an encyclopaedic article. Just because something is over-reported in the media does not mean it should be in an encyclopaedic article. Mvjs (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exaggeration are you referring to? If it is in the article, then edit it. If it is in the media, what part of the media reporting are you referring to? Most of it seems pretty factual to me. There is significant coverage of this event because it is highly unusual which reinforces why it should not be deleted. As for the need for hard information/evidence, it is there in photos of a 744 with a gaping whole in it - ie strong evidence of an explosive decompression. If you are talking about the cause, then what policy states that we need to know exactly what the cause is before we can have an article? Not knowing the precise cause would actually make the incident more notable, not less. In any event, the article can be updated once more is known. As for United/QF1, this is not a contest. Incidents/accidents may be more or less notable than others. WWII is more notable than the Boer War, but that doesn't mean that the Boer War article should be deleted. Obviously there needs to be a cut-off point. A good practical example is the recent wheel door failure on a Qantas 738. This has clearly been carried along by the QF30 incident. It is certainly not notable in itself and I would support a proposal to delete an article devoted to it. QF30 on the other hand is different in many key respects. It is not, as you contend, "one of many incidents a year". It is one of a handful of explosive decompressions in the history of civil aviation. It is also unusual for an explosive decompression in that it did not result in loss of life or serious injury. Seth ze (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Something described as a "hole the size of a small car" (as it was on National Public Radio this afternoon) in the side of an aircraft sounds like something significant. My feeling of the WP:AIRLINES guidance on incidents is that it is really meant to exclude more routine types of incidents, e.g. medical diversions, birdstrikes, precautionary diversions after a warning light came on, etc. If in the long term this does turn out to not have really been notable, we can always come back and reevaluate whether a standalone article is deserved. Since to me this is an incident that would lean towards long term notability, however, I'd like to keep it and build it up now, rather than having to come back in the future when sources can be harder to find (for example, some news sites move articles into pay archives after a few weeks). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at this stage. May be rolled into an article on Qantas or Aircraft hull problems at some later date if this incident - that could have easily been a disaster - proves to be not noteworthy in the WP Airline sense. Ariconte (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hold to a very liberal interpretation of NOT NEWS, but ongoing news events that are not clearly to be of permanent interest where the facts of the matter are not yet known are--like this one--exactly the sort of material that should not be included in Wikipedia. At some time in the future, possibly even the near future, it may well be possible to write an encyclopedic article, but this kind of detail and uncertainty does not even remotely qualify. I am somewhat surprised at the extent of defense of this article. The need for prompt coverage stated frequently above implies a place in WikiNews, not here. DGG (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Delete) Two people have so far indicated here that the hole was "three metres" or better yet "the size of a small car". Both of these are complete and utter fabrication of the facts. There was a 1.5 metre hole on the leading edge of the right wing. [1] Doesn't have the same ring to it now, does it? This is exactly what I'm talking about when you're sorting through the thriller movie script the media is reporting and the facts. Once this dies down in the media, this crash will be no different to the Darwin incident mentioned or the numerous 747-300 incidents. Mvjs (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, no such fabrications exist in the article. Plasticup ^T/C 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I just removed them. The Times has a good list of incidents on Qantas Boeing 747s that have occurred recently. [2] There have been six incidents since 1999, including Qantas Flight 1 and several of those have been more significant than this incident and are a testament to what happens after the intense media scrutiny concludes. Bar QF1, none of these have an article. Just back in February, a Qantas 747 near Bangkok lost all four engines and landed on battery power. Back in March, a window popped on a 747-300. Back in 2003, a pilot feared the plane had caught fire and everyone was evacuated on the slides. And of course our 1999 incident, where the plane slid of the end of the runway crashing into grasslands. These have all disappeared from our memory, haven't they? This will be the same fate for QF30. Mvjs (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. I see that you easily found a significant number of independent and reliable secondary sources to verify the information. Plasticup ^T/C 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did find some independent sources, not all of them reliable though. This is just a testament to the over zealous media coverage of the incident that has occurred, which is exactly what I am trying to point out. After we all take a deep breath, this incident will descend in to the minor incidents basket that I've previously mentioned. ^^ Mvjs (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those incidents you paraphrased were a little beat up, the Bangkok incident wasn't a loss of all four engines, it was a loss of electricity from the generators on all four engines due to a leak in the forward galley. The window pop incident was just a cracked window (reason enough to divert yes, not reason enough for world wide coverage). I think you'll find that traditional print editors world wide have their collective finger on the pulse that is good enough to recognise a story when they see one. 82.69.27.224 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe the article meets the notability guideline for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Notability "Aviation accidents" as the incident "involves unusual circumstances", those being loss of a section of the fuselage and the resultant rapid decompression of the cabin. Melburnian (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This obviously has been a major incident, not simply a flock-of-geese-in-the-turbine kind of thing. It also needs to be seen in the context that there's a general feeling now that the airline industry is at a major breaking point, because of tremendous pressures brought on by fuel costs, deregulation, and critical views on its being a sustainable mode of transport. So they've got to cut corners where they can. In fact the article mentions concerns about outsourcing of maintenance work, and though I do realise this may be a red herring, since other scenarios for this near accident are still viable, further investigation may bring facts to light that may bear on safety and other issues that are highly relevant and notable. Reigndream (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should clarify my above statement regarding the relationship between airline safety and its economical downturn in recent times and its bearing on the notability of the current entry. Incidence like this may add up to—or subtract from, depending on the investigative outcome—an overall picture of the effects of this downturn on industry standards and safeguards, which may spawn encyclopedic entries in the future (or expand current ones). Seeing that transport costs and its effects on safety are hot-button issues and are likely here to stay, entries like the one now debated would be a valuable source for these articles.Reigndream (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm starting to get the feeling now that maybe this incident might be of more significance than what was initially reported. Some pretty interesting stuff has been coming out since the initial a door has popped. It's just that between now and when the ATSB/NTSB release their reports, the article will be including information that it simply based on what the media is saying, which in a lot of cases, is spur of the moment journalism and includes factual inaccuracies and inference. Once the reports are released, we'll be able to get some solid encyclopaedic facts. It's just the window of time between now and then will leave us with an article that is really of no encyclopaedic merit. Mvjs (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTE - "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". BBC, Reuters, ASN, ATSB, NY Times, all cover it. This is in the same category as Aloha 243 and United 811, it was just fortunate it was part of the baggage fuselage and not passenger compartment. XLerate (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to see a note in Cabin pressurization under Notable Incidents, even if this article is deleted. As stated in that article, these incidents are very rare and all but one of those listed have resulted in death of some or all of the occupants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseoldboss (talk • contribs) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)--Jaseoldboss (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a great amount of international interest, especially in the United States where Boeing is headquartered, of the the cause of the damage as this could impact all 747-400 series aircraft, much in the same way the structural failure of United Airlines Flight 811 caused modifications to all early generations 747s. There is no WP:MUST_BE_DEATHS guideline to our inclusion standards as a lot of the delete voters near the top seem to imply (ie "No one even got injured"). If that were the case, the British Airways Flight 9 and the Gimli Glider articles are doomed. --Oakshade (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an explosive decompression is a highly unusual accident. I would expect either the airline or the manufacturer to have messed something up somewhere, but regardless, I can only think of two other nonfatal explosive decompressions (not counting truely tiny incidents with small holes) and both are very important. I might have been swayed towards delete if only a cargo door had gone, although, again, I would not be prejudiced against recreating the article if the inestigation showed up something interesting. If you get unlucky in an event like this, and the wrong bits are taken out, you can lose the entire airliner. Suggestions the passengers were never at risk are entirely false. They were fine once the air had gone and wasn't going to do any more damge; until then there was only luck in what did and didn't break. There's always the risk the wing could have been damaged and/or the engines damged by the crap coming off. A suitcase would be enough in the wrong pace. Finally, there are plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and recreate if this turns out to have wider implications. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the best option. Delete now and if, in the future, when the ATSB/NTSB reports are released wider implications are found, the article should be recreated. Mvjs (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Moondyne 10:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The international coverage, the challenge to Qantas's safety record and coming so close to the Qantas engineers' industrial action move the incident beyond WP:ONEEVENT to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:21 Delete:15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.27.224 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are evil, Polling discourages consensus. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, down to this point it's Keep:27 and Delete (including nom):14 (the Comment (Delete) is simply the nom adding comments). Might as well be accurate with this evil poll.--Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An explosive decompression on a scheduled passenger flight alone is a serious enough occurance, and this event also ties in to questions raised recently about Qantas' maintenance record. Seems pretty notable to me. tgies (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge - still not notable for an article of its own suggest delete and add information to Qantas. If the official report/s indicate it was caused by maintenance error or the like then the article could be created from reliable sources rather than not always reliable news reports. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given Qantas' good flight safety, and also professionals saying that's a near-disaster, that's already notable. After all, a huge piece of metal was pulled off from that plane. – PeterCX&Talk 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge with Qantas. Several flights make emergency landing due to some or the reason. An Air Mauritius flight made an emergency landing in Delhi couple of days back because its engine caught fire and it had an even more miraculous escape. This incident received more coverage because of the uniqueness of the type of damage the aircraft suffered. But still, a mention about the incident in Qantas article should be more than enough. --Emperor Genius (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Quantas#Aircraft incidents and accidents has now been enriched for a mention of this incident/accident (classified as such by ATSB/NTSB), despite an apparent initial edit war sustained in order to keep it unmentioned, now that expert wikipedians in aviation have spoken. Deleting the article now would not be as damaging to the cause of serving the average reader, assuming my addition sticks. It is well-sourced, factual, informative and neutral. It expressly mentions the preliminary ATSB/NTSB status given this event. --Mareklug ^talk 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths, no injuries, no evidence of lasting notability beyond a couple of news cycles. By all means mention in the Qantas article - we do that already - but no need for a separate article. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) I would note that there was a massive edit war on the Qantas main article (mainly that people kept removing a link to this article from that article, and were removing any reference at all to the Qantas Explosive Decompression incident! I do not understand *why* the position changed, but I do note that the moment that reference got inserted into the Qantas article as a tiny side-note, then more Delete calls from the editors of the Qantas article ('We') appeared here! Wikipedia is not censored. Buckethed (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP with Substantial Damage to the airframe due to explosive decompression during a flight loaded with passengers, it's classified as Serious Incident by ATSB http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200804689.aspx {Howardchu (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

• DELETE. The investigation has not been concluded or published yet, so any comments about explosive decompression are original research and do not meet Wikipedia stds for reliability. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, actually, explosive decompression has been established. That was the easy part. In fact, that's the only bit of the investigation that is availible to the public. Trying to pin down a cause - that is OR. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, Socrates2008, if we use the rule that any articles where the investigation has not been completed should not be included in Wikipedia, we may as well delete the last year or two of this aviation accidents/incidents page!. So, your delete vote is discounted :) Buckethed (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, just because an article contains original research doesn't mean the subject of the article is not notable. Remove the OR and consider what remains. --RFBailey (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT Greetings, Socrates2008. Whether we should label the occurence as "rapid depressurization" or "explosive decompression" has actually taken place, if a "hole" is large enough to expose the cargo hold along with the separation of a section of the wing root fairing which has been classified as "substantial damage" to the airframe by ATSB[3], then leading to another "hole" appeared in cabin floor AND losing cabin pressure in a sudden, it's a notable event even it's not ended in disastrous outcome with any loss of life or the aircraft itself. The reliability of using materials of original research can't discount the exhibit of these substantial damages. {Howardchu (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment - the most recent ATSB press release says this is a rapid decompression event. Doesn't quite sound as sensational anymore as the explosive decompression event everyone was initially talking about, does it? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Socrates2008, with all due respect, are you deflecting the critical issue of the subject? Once again, it's a rare occurence in aviation whether we should label it as "rapid decompression" or "explosive decompression". If a "hole" is large enough to expose the cargo hold along with the separation of a section of the wing root fairing which has been classified as "substantial damage" to the airframe by ATSB[4], then leading to another "hole" appeared in cabin floor AND losing cabin pressure in a sudden, it's a notable event even it's not ended in disastrous outcome with any loss of life or the aircraft itself. The reliability of using materials of original research can't discount the exhibit of these substantial damages. {Howardchu (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I thought explosive decompression was a form of rapid decompression? One's just more ambiguous, but I thought here they mean essentially the same thing, the latter just also covers a bit more. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between rapid decompression and explosive decompression is one of degrees. As per the references on the explosive decompression page, it's a question of speed, with explosive decompression typically taking less than 0.5 seconds with a high risk of lung trauma. It is also compartively unlikely to occur in a large aircraft, with the larger volume of the vessel involved. This said, I don't think a rapid decompression is any less sensational - it's still an extraordinarily rare and potentially dangerous event. People and crew have been torn out of aircraft in rapid decompression events and it is fortunate - and notable - that this did not occur on this occasion. -- Rob.au (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This is getting lots of news coverage and is well covered. This sort of things seems to catch the publics imagination, even more so than some traditional fatal accidents. I guess its the nature of a "big hole in my airplane" thing. The accident is unusual, notable and well well covered by RS. Slam dunk keep. Dman727 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is an accident, and agreed with the above points of satisfying WP:NOTE and the fact there shouldn't be fatalties/injuries for inclusion. Have seen similar articles. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 02:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Going purely by the guidelines, this accident seems to fall into WP:NOTE, which defines what deserves its own article, moreso than WP:AIRLINES, which defines what information should be included on an airlines' page. Thus, the event seems to definitely belong in its own page, and may or may not be appropriate for the Quantas page depending on what comes out of the investigation. In any case, a gaping hole of any size forming spontaneously in the external fuselage of an aircraft seems like an event noteworthy of inclusion even if it becomes a somewhat obscure article (only of interest to researchers) in time. And if it's really as mundane as some posit, it can be deleted later, but at this point I'm convinced it's noteworthy. --Sam (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is well-referenced and clearly establishes notability as an important incident in the history of one of the world's most well-known airlines. - Mark 05:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - can I just remind contributors that an AfD is not a vote please refrain from adding up scores. The closing admin will make a decision on the arguments put forward not on the number of deletes and keeps. Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Widespread media coverage means a wealth of reliable sources, which means that the event is notable and verifiable. -- SCZenz (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This is an extremely serious incident. The only reason this aircraft did not break up in flight resulting in a total loss of life was because of the airframe design that incorporates strengthening ribs throughout the skin of the aircraft, so if a sections of airframe is damaged such as this, the ribs stop the damage from spreading, and splitting open the whole aircraft. From the looks of the pictures, this aircraft very nearly could have broken past these strengthening, and become a total loss. If this Boeing aircraft was not designed with such good safety mechanisms built in, it would have been a different outcome, but the accident is still extremely serious. I believe there is very valuable lessons to learn from this accident, independent of the fact there was no loss of life, so this article should be kept so the results of the investigation can be included in the article as the facts become available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.238.65 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's notable and important.--Avala (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Are you suggesting somebody needs to die before an accident qualifies for Wikipedia?! This incident is major in every way except the sensationalist, and should definitely be kept! CapnZapp (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The accident is being described as a Serious Incident with the damage described as Substantial by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Part of the side of a 747 falling off is an extremely rare incident, which will remain notable, whatever the cause.--Lester 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There were no casualties on British Airways Flight 38, but that is still notable and its article has not been deleted. This article is interesting and cites many references, it should definitely be kept. 212.159.69.172 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a major event which has made news around the world, and this may even cause an airworthiness directive to be issued by various bodies around the world for the 747. It's just speculation "eg an internet forum said this" type talk should be removed as soon as possible, as these are not reliable (or authoritative) sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvyk (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose any ,pves at tring to remove this article. QF 30 mwas a major aviation accident where an aeroplane and peope were saved only saved by luck. We can not give in to false Aussie pride nor to the love of Qantas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anteres101 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice. I think that, for the time being, the most useful thing for Wikipedia is to have an article on the incident. It's easier than fighting a running battle against article recreation, and the current article appears to be robustly sourced. A few months down the road, let's revisit and see if it still warrants an article to itself. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a noteworthy event, with ongoing ramifications for the Australian aviation industry and flagship airline. I don't subscribe to the interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS being touted above, and disagree with such rapid deletion based on such an interpretation of same. --Canley (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A noteworthy event with worldwide ramifications. Schmoul Aschkenazi (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has sufficient references to warrant its retention, as well as significant media coverage in the Philippines, Australia and abroad. (Note: this article is now part of the Philippine WikiProject deletion watchlist.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aviation history, with international significance. - DaughterofSun (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has enough citations, and I saw this on TV, and the news. Qsung (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I personally think the article should be kept for say, 6 months and then have a revision. This will have 2 benifeits, it will mean that the media coverage should have died down, and some "official" studies will have been done, allowing a more unbiased descision to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.36.167 (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not think events like these require a casualty for them to be notable. Starczamora (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. For an incident which fuels lots of attention because it has the potential of putting the future of the Boeing 747 in question[5], I would think it fulfilled the notability requirement easily on its own. While some guidelines established by a clunch of individuals in WP:AIRLINES may be well-meaning, taking them literally to the last when determining the notability of an aviation incident is plain silly, as many have pointed out. I recall how a few of them insists the first A380 commercial flight ought to be deleted[6] too because it describes a piece of good news and no one is dead. I hope wikipedia is not becoming an aviation orbituary page!--Huaiwei (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For crying out loud, does every aviation incident (including those without any fatalities or even injuries) need an article now? Wikipedia is not the place for news reports. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't every aviation incident - it's a unique event. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has said ""As far as we can determine this has never happened before on a passenger aircraft. There's no reports of it anywhere, so it's very, very unusual and obviously understanding why that happened will be absolutely critical to making sure it can't occur again". [7] -- Rob.au (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think fatality or injury count should have any bearing on article notability-- in fact I'd say it's the opposite. Over-emphasizing fatalities, I think, that makes wikipedia sometimes seem like news reports and requires the WP:NOT#NEWS guideline. There are a tiny number of cases where an aircraft has opened up in mid-flight, and thus each one probably deserves its own article so researchers can easily dig into the analysis and details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkass (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Aviation_accidents as an unusual incident involving an otherwise extremely reliable airline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I highly doubt this discussion will end in anything other than a no consensus, but my two cents and gut feel is that this is going to be forgotten about by the public in a week or so. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. Certainly would be appropriate to expand the brief article on wikinews though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• No, it wouldn't. Wikinews is a news site, not an encyclopedia. That article is over 24 hours old and should not receive any more major edits. New developments get new articles, and they are welcome. Also, notability isn't measured by memorability anyway. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This incident has lots of prominent international news coverage, and can be revisited several months later if there's no lasting effects. Galatee (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think Galatee and MickMacNee have it about right: let's revisit this at a later stage if needed, but it's certainly too early to consider this for deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The latest Qantas incident is in my opinion an example of the sort of news item that does not warrant an entry in Wikipedia. It is exactly because of the significance of QF30 that minor aviation incidents are today being reported. The chief executive of Qantas is today reported as describing the QF30 event as "a very, very bad accident." I still say keep. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Strong Keep - This is highly notable because explosive decompression had occurred, similar to United Airlines Flight 811, and Aloha Airlines Flight 243. People should not have to die, for an article to be included in wikipedia.--Subman758 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Strong Keep - why not keep? it's there already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.27.8 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Flashing things on webpages are offensive - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this article is pure sensationalist news. The incident was not notable nor serious enough (relative to aviation incidents in general, not relative to Qantas' history) to get a whole WP article. It should be a paragraph, or a section at absolute most, on Qantas. --BG (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

• Keep. Structural failure or incidents caused by "routine" operation are notable. The difference between life and death is something of luck. And in a time when we focus on aircraft security, it is important to also keep our eye on the continuing, long-standing problem of operational problems. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Scanlan (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Explosive decompression in civil aircraft is highly unusual and this instance may even be unique if, as postulated, it is due to an exploding oxygen cylinder. "An oxygen cylinder had never before exploded mid-air on a passenger aircraft, a Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman, Peter Gibson, said yesterday. He confirmed the oxygen cylinder was missing, and would be a key focus of the bureau investigation." ^[1] I cannot believe that this article is even being considered for deletion. This seems to be part of a disturbing trend to use notability concerns as form of censorship. Seth ze (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Censorship"? Nice way to get attention, but I'd be surprised if any of the people nominating "delete" (myself included) would mind this being on WP. We just don't think it is notable nor serious enough to get its own article. A paragraph or section on the Qantas page would be far more suitable. --BG (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True, I agree with you Seth ze! It's pretty absurd that this article is even being discussed on AFD. It's very insulting to my intelligence that this even on the table and taking up my (our) valuable time and space. I am very skeptical of this deletion nomination by users ApprenticeFan, Mvjs and other early editors that responded. However, I am heartened that Mvjs hints at some regret about this AFD request in his later posts: I'm starting to get the feeling now that maybe this incident might be of more significance than what was initially reported. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from this experience: an article that really shouldn't have been an AFD candidate was nominated; this led to a cesspool that we see now. The lesson is: we should pick and choose our AFD battles very carefully; battles that are not meritorious (such as this one) turn into a polarized cesspool of editors arguing against what they perceive as the 'other' side. Hundreds of wasted hours (that could have been spent to have dinner with family, play in a golf match, have a lunch hour with colleagues, have a few brewskis during happy hour) have disappeared into this oblivion of a black hole that we call the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 discussion page. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened and can't see how this is an issue and this page is about why you want to delete or keep not the above comments (Nor my own). The AfD opener may have done it a little early but they may have reasons for doing so. I also doubt hours have been wasted on this AfD. Bidgee (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was looking at a news video about this incident, and I went to Wikipedia in order to get a good summary and a really good compliation of the currently available sources. I got what I wanted. This article is useful and encyclopedic. - Enuja (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - notable enough for an article and interesting. Wikipedia is not paper and can afford to keep articles like this. And although this is not a vote, the number of persons who want to keep this article strongly suggests that this should be kept by consensus. JRG (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable notable incident that was not within the ordianry run of events - come back in 6 months time and try again - perhaps with hindsight it won't be notable but right now would appear to be so. --Matilda ^talk 06:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Going by current investigations, the explosion occurred because of an oxygen cylinder. Does that make this particular incident notable? Accidents happen everywhere. So many aircraft hit birds because of which they have to make emergency landings. We cannot have articles on all such incidents. I've gone through all the arguments in favor of keeping the article and couldn't find one which was convincing enough. --Emperor Genius (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that does make it notable from what I heard on the news last night there has not been any similar explanation for an explosion before. Bird strike would not have been notable. --Matilda ^talk 07:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bird strike would have been notable IFF (if and only if) the bird splatter caused explosive decompression. Of course, for that to happen the bird would have to hit the cockpit glass head on. In such cases, there are much more serious problems, such as the pilot's face going missing, which would be very notable. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 07:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that Qantas had to go over all their 747s to check the cylinders and the brackets that hold them? That on its own is close to meeting the guidlines WP:AIRCRASH had been working on before it became inactive. Also, the 'unusual circumstances' part seas this. I should point out, though, that against my argument there is the fact that those guidlines were still considered incomplete last I knew, although they were reasonably close to it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the fact that other airlines have become worried and are doing similar checks on their Boeing 747s.[8]--Huaiwei (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. But I have one question: is rapid decompression enough to make this particular incident noteworthy? Let me remind that if this particular incident occurred because of the explosion of an oxygen cylinder, it is not an unusual incident because such incidents can happen with any aircraft. What about an aircraft's engine catching fire due to a bird hit? That is an equally dangerous scenario. Talking about unusual incidents in aviation history, a Garuda Indonesia plane turned back to its starting port after the pilots saw an Indian missile go past it barely few meters away and it also caused a brief diplomatic crisis [9]. Such particular incidents have little encyclopedic value and are just newsworthy. --Emperor Genius (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in direct contradiction to what CASA has said about this. "As far as we can determine this has never happened before on a passenger aircraft ... There's no reports of it anywhere, so it's very, very unusual and obviously understanding why that happened will be absolutely critical to making sure it can't occur again". [10] -- Rob.au (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: wouldn't this contribute an even greater cesspool of AFD because other users would from that other project would start adding their input? Just wondering. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting maybe that more people might get to offer their input? Your statement seems to suggest that you consider that a bad thing... --BG (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or that posting it in specific area might look like soliciting. Plasticup ^T/C 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Incidents are generally news stories and subject to higher notability standards than other subjects since Wikipedia is not a newspaper. However, explosive decompressions are very rare, and very serious (like American Airlines Flight 96). This was not just a malfunctioning engine or oxygen tank which is handled routinely, this was a serious explosion which caused serious damage to the aircraft. (If you look at the pictures, that is a big hole near the wing.) These things are taken very seriously by aviation authorities, and bring up safety questions on par with a fatal accident. The interest and seriousness in something like this is well enough to support inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Newsworthy but not noteworthy (or should that be newsable but not notable?) If and when the outcome of this leads to a change in 747 operations, we can always reinstate it. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice against recreation once the ATSB and other inquiries have reported on it. Orderinchaos 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we apply that logic, then we would need to delete most of the 2008,2007 articles from aviation accidents / incidents!. That aside, I agree that Westerm Australia is a lovely place to be and I do hope to visit there soon :) 166.83.21.221 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The unusual nature of the accident makes this notable. AP via San Jose Mercury News: "Blyth (a senior ATSB investigator) and other officials say they are unaware of any previous cases in which an oxygen tank caused an airline accident." and it's not like the ValuJet crash. Philadelphia Inquirer: "Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Les Dorr cautioned, however, that the only thing the Qantas mishap and the ValuJet crash in 1996 'have in common is the word oxygen.'" Balsa10 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a very notable event, furthermore it was covered by many independent sources --T-rex 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wikipedia commonly includes articles on contemporary news events, and even has a section on its home paged which mentions these events. This article is no exception to the standard applied to dozens of other articles, and is in fact very newsworthy in our age of worries about flight safety and the viability of the commercial airline industry. That is is being discussed on other major newsites lends credibility to the article's existence. If Wikipedia is indeed not a news website, as Wikimedia is, then the entirety of Wikipedia's news articles should be scrapped. This article must not be singled out as an exception for the sake of fairness and consistency. 9:59, 29 July 2008 (CST)
• Keep' this is a notable incident and covered by ATSB and NTSB. Jer10 95 Talk 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It fits WP:Notable without question. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - adequate notability. Barnabypage (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - This was potentially a serious incident. It is very recent and we await hearing developments in the investigation. Its retention may need to be reconsidered when the outcome of the investigation is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on revisiting. Surely any assessment of notability is a one time thing. i.e. notable now = notable forever: per the notability guideline, we do not revisit an article once it has been established as notable and then delete if certain developments don't happen. That would be the violation of WP:NOTNEWS here if anything, and also a bit of crystall ballery. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am starting to think that this meets notability requirements just for all the fuss it is causing from it's AfD nomination. "Methinks thou doth protest too much..." Also, it was a potentially serious incident that ended without death or injury when other similar incidents have resulted in those very things. Wikipedia articles don't exist to just feed the "ghouls" that want to read about death and misery. I dunno though... and Emperor Genius, the difference is that the other plane returned to its port by choice not because of a life or death incident. Radiooperator (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I just came to Wikipedia to find more technical facts about this incident over the somewhat exaggerated stuff being put out by the UK media and was somewhat taken back that it had been marked for deletion. This is certainly a serious incident which may have implications to all areas of aviation. At least wait until firm facts are known before deleting. Dsergeant (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep meets WP:V. Honestly, could you guys start actualy building articles rather than simply deleting them? I thought Qantas had a reputation of havindg no accidents, though that may be just me. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pretty much as per LeadSongDog and others, above. Also because there is a story reported by the BBC, here, that the cockpit voice recorder was wiped in the incident. As and when further evidence about that comes to light, the unexpected consequences of this incident may become more notable (i.e. there may need to be an investigation of the security of these important devices in this aircraft type). Therefore, as has been said, it's too soon to decide on the article's noteworthiness. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The evidence is leaning very strongly, according to the ATSB, towards an exploding oxygen tank (debris was found in the passenger compartment). This would make the incident unique, particularly in light that it was ultimately non-catastrophic (similar to the Aloha Airlines Flight 243 incident, though for a different reason). If the incident is unique, that should automatically make it noteworthy.—WhosAsking (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended to Strong Keep. This article meets the Notability criteria, as it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (we're talking sources like the BBC, Associated Press, New York Times, and CNN to name a few).
• Amend to Strong Keep. Even the ATSB now calls this occurrence an "Accident". It appears to be a near-miracle there wasn't an oxygen fire in flight. There will clearly be several good lessons learned from this investigation. Full disclosure: I've been actively engaged in improving the article. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a news item, not an encyclopedic event.--Dmol (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Amend to Strong Keep. Looking at WP:NOT#NEWS, I don't believe this accident can be considered a routine or trivial news event. I'm referring to the damage sustained to the aircraft coupled with an ultimately non-fatal result, as WhosAsking partially says, the likelihood of the unusual cause of the accident, as Balsa10 says, and that Qantas checking all its 747s has influenced other arlines to do the same, as Huaiwei said. I've revised my original opinion, and while its notability can be revisited later, believe it is notable regardless of future repurcussions or lack of same. Galatee (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a modern news item - there are a total of 40 refs, which establish its notability. There really isn't any reason to delete anymore, since the article has been improved dramatically. --haha169 (talk) 19:58, 30 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.