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. On balance, I think the delete side has a slightly better argument, but not so much better to find any consensus to delete the article. This could very well be worth another discussion in November 2011, but like always, trying to dsicuss events in the immediate aftermath of the event has lots of crystal ball speculation on all sides, a large amount of sources for a news event, and a very long discussion that no consensus can be derived from. I know that's not what anyone really wants to hear, but there's nothing to be squeezed out of this one. Courcelles 05:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 32[edit]

Qantas Flight 32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(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]

I withdraw my nomination since some facts have come out of the past few days and today about Qantas Flight 32 and RR Trent 900 engines I feel that this now meets notability. Other issues with POV and NOTNEWS can be dealt with on the article. Bidgee (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(and edited) Advanstra (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, does it really take that before its considered not news any more--Advanstra (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (and edited) Advanstra (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree! Elmao (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote due to further developments

Its pretty serious for the airline and aircraft - and for Australian Aviation. There are many stand alone articles on less serious airline incidents. I'd support to delete it myself less than everybody in Australia remembers it in a day or two.--Advanstra (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (and edited) Advanstra (talk) 16:12, 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. StrPby (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]

*Delete, From the infobox - "Injuries 0, Fatalities 0". HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 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]
Actually its "Injuries 2, Fatalities 0", but why does this fact so important for AfD anyway?--Advanstra (talk) 05:19, 5 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]
About now as the incident has developed wider significance (which wasn't the case at the time the article was created). I've struck my delete. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 10 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]
I agree with you that we need more time for the full outcome to be determined, though with the announcement by Singapore Airlines 'delaying' their A380 flights on 'the advice of RR' I am much more starting to lean towards the keep side. Above I was merely trying to point out that media attention can have an effect on how notable an incident becomes. See for example the BA flight that landed short at Heathrow in '08 vs. the one that landed short in Italy earlier this year (apologies that I haven't had a chance to link those at the moment). One, because of the airline, location and place type, has its own wikipedia article (justifiably), yet the other doesn't as it occured on a much more common plane, by a not well known operator and in a 'relatively' remote, not high profile area and does not (justifibly) have its own article. This is regardless of the fact that two incidents by themselves, the technical aspects, fatality/injury rate were very similar. Ravendrop (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In both the incidents you mention, the aircraft crashed. That's worth an article. In this case, the aircraft returned safely to the airport, there were no injuries, an overnight delay, a bit of inconvenience. These things happen to scheduled flights on a regular basis - the recent incident involving a B744 at SFO is a case in point. We don't need an article on the specific flight. It's not going to go down in history as anything out of the ordinary. Where it is noteworthy lies in the connection to the aircraft and the airline. A380 operations have been remarkably incident-free, and of course any Qantas incident is reasonably notable. But QF32 has been delayed and disrupted in the past, and will doubtless be so again in the future. We don't need a distinct article for one instance of a scheduled flight that wasn't very much out of the ordinary. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes an incident that wasn't very much out of the ordinary. Ravendrop (talk) 00:29, 6 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]


Comment - you should take a closer look at the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:44, 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]
Not to nitpick, but the A380 is an Airbus aircraft, not Boeing. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, silly me. I should know better. Was a bit stressed out when I wrote that. wackywace 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is not really an argument in this case - this is not just a random news item that will go away, but meets WP:AIRCRASH etc. Buckethed (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, WP:AIRCRASH just states that this article more likely to be notable the more sections it covers, and less likely to be notable if it has e.g. two entries in one section. More likely doesn't mean 100%, just as less likely doesn't mean 0%. This article is less likely from that part of WP:AIRCRASH, but from WP:GNG etc, it is clearly notable and deserving of an article.Buckethed (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you and everyone else who does it, really don't help your case at all by simply stating it is 'clearly' notable or 'clearly' meets the GNG at all. I am not going to be swayed by such simple assertion at all, neither is the closer, and if it realy were true, this Afd would not even still be going on. As for your percentage comment, so what? Sliding scale or absolute test, this incident is still at the wrong end of the scale of pre-assumed notability, so if anything, it means you should be making more of an effort to show how it is notable, not simply ignoring the essay and trying a different one or simply repeating blind assertions of notability again. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the uninitiated: 1.) Note that there is a difference between aircraft models, SIA and Qantas are both using nearly identical A380-842 model which are powered by RR Trent 972 while Lufthansa is using the A380-841 which has the RR Trent 970. 2.) Both EADS & RR adviced SIA to conduct a more thorough pre-flight checks of the RR Trent 972 engines, which consequently delayed SIA's A380 operating schedule/tempo. Actually, this is more for safety measure than being a PR move, which is usually done unilaterally by the company and does not require any participation or information from the manufacturer themselves. BTW, Lufthansa is not grounding their fleet, only Qantas is at the moment. That is all. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Mr Rude. Only trying to do something with the article - I seem to be just about the only person adding content. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE User:Dave1185 has deleted two other people's contibutions - mine included - in his recent edits. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Diffs [diff=prev&oldid=394835306] (mine) and [diff=prev&oldid=394834442] (another IPs). 86.152.23.62 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict)Please assume good faith, unless you have no idea how many people are editing this page all at once, this becomes a major cause for multiple edit conflict. Besides, it takes time to fix it and you are hell bent on reverting without giving others the chance to explain themselves. What are you? The judge, the prosecutor and executioner all rolled into one??? Cut me some slack while I'm fixing the problem, wil'ya? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, on two separate occasions you have removed other people's edits here. Once might be seen as unfortunate, twice, in the words of Lady Bracknell ... The second was one by me objecting to you heading your comment immediately after my previous one as Comment for the clueless. Not only was that rude, I don't think you were showing much good faith there, removing comments that are critical of you. And in your comments above, describing me as Hell bent on reverting is not exactly assuuming good faith, either. If you insult me and then remove my comments complaining about being insulted, of course I will revert. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I have just noticed [User_talk:Daniel_Case#Potential_trouble_brewing this by you] on Daniel Case's talk page. You're not assuming much good faith there either are you? You talk about IPs consensus/vote fraud because, horror of horrors, people who aren't part of the Aviation Task Force are daring to express opinions on the article here at this AFD. How about WP:OWN, Dave? I came to the article because I was surprised not to see it in ITN. You have asked for the article to be protected against IP edits. Take a look at the edit summaries. I have doubled the size of that article in the last 24 hours, adding much cited information. What have you added to it? What vandalistic edits have been made to the article by IPs that it needs to be semi-protected? As far as I can see, it is stable and a non-contentious area. The arguments are confined to this page. I would also add that, as I have pointed out above, you have been adding 'unruly comments' at this AFD, not solely the IPs. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:EVENT, you could argue that it doesn't meet criteria, as it is too new. It is, however, obvious that this will not just be a news spike, but will be covered in more detail later (e.g. later ATSB investigations etc). You could argue that this is both WP:Original Research and WP:CRYSTAL, but if that is the case, it means that nothing that has just happened should be included on Wikipedia, because, to include recent events would not fit WP:EVENT notability due to WP:CRYSTAL. If this logic is used, a mid-air crash between two A380s would also be put up for DxELETE / SxPEEDY DxELETE.... as it doesn't yet meet WP:EVENT in terms of duration (although you could predict it with a WP:CRYSTAL Ball!). Therefore, Sxtrong Kxeep, and if it gets deleted, I have a local mirror to preserve the good work that people have done once a certain amount of time has passed!.Buckethed (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing the content of that ref, but while it is rare and serious, I can guarantee that we do not have a whole separate article on every engine failure like this, it is not something that is considered automaticaly notable on its own. And you should not fall into the trap of assuming that no article means it's not serious, this is false. The relevant point is it being the first on this plane/engine, and AIRCRASH covers the whens/whys/hows on that score pretty well, because these sorts of things have all come up in history before, Aviation didn't begin with the A380, and we know pretty well by now what is of lasting significance or not, or good enough to says so in an essay anyway, eliminating the need for all the guesswork in your rationale (the further coverage of investigations for example is not something that is not accounted for in that essay, and the only thing that matters is what it says when published, not that it just happens, because they always happen). And on that essay, I think you really just need to read it again, because the incident doesn't clearly meet it at all, quite the opposite. And you are just seriously wrong if you think that EVENT precludes any recent events at all, that would be completely opposite to the actual whole point of the Guideline, so again, maybe you should review it one more time. Also, please don't vote multiple times, I've stricken your second one. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking the second 'vote', actually, it was just a word in the middle of the paragraph, so not a vote; It would be nice to assume good faith :) Also, even if it had been a bad faith attempt at getting in two votes (right next to eachother?!, under the same user name) then why would it matter - this is not a voting contest anyway, merely a discussion. However, just in case the final administrator does decide to count votes, I have corrupted the 'Sxtrong Kxeep' that you struck out, but also the 'Dxelete and Sxpeedy Dxelete' that you didn't strike out. Anyway, thanks for your time; this article seems to have survived the usual Wikipedia birth process (which is actually abusive at times, with articles getting put up for Delete or speedy delete because they only have two lines in them...... but that is just because the editor only started making the article 2 minutes ago!). Some of the people voting are reversing their votes to 'Keep' now, WP:CRYSTAL is failing (because it continues to be notable, so is now WP:FACT), so I think no further discussion is required, to be honest. Buckethed (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in a generic circumstance. However the reason why those articles are missing is by a consensus, it was agreed that these events weren't noteworthy. Those events aren't just missing because the wikipedia lacks them and nobody cared to make them, it was decided that they were simply not worth having as the event of a single engine failure, without other circumstances or events adding to the event, simply was not worth having an article by itself. Kyteto (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact that a consensus was reached for some other topic can still be no argument for this discussion. What may be more helpful is how the consensus in previous discussions was reached, and if the arguments for it are also applicable in this case.--memset (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid argument when the ommission is down to the 'other' incidents not having been notable enough to not have to rely soly on contemporary news reports to write an article on it in 2010. If you can find out the flight number of any old airliner's first major engine failure, and you can show that sources many years later discuss that flight's significance in enough detail to be able to create an entire article on it, and justify its inclusion here on it's own without giving UNDUE weight to the incident, then you can maybe dismiss this argument. You've given no such example here yet, so you cannot simply wave OTHERSTUFF at it and pretend that is a rebuttal at all. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But where are our readers going to look for information? In the A380 article, that's where. I don't see any voices raised here to remove this incident from Wikipedia entirely, merely to remove this article about a specific Qantas flight. It's not an air crash, it's not a fatal accident, nor even causing injuries. It's just a fairly regular occurrence in air transport. The only notability is that it is a rare incident involving the A380, and that's where the information and references belong. In the A380 article. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that's what wikilinks and ((main)) are for. This incident deserves its own article, although it will still be mentioned in the A380 article. Guoguo12--Talk--  01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best course of action would be to just keep this article and merge it if in time this proves to be not such a big deal. We have done that before with many things besides aviation incidents. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Qantas' Airbus A380's carry the similar amount of people as its Boeing 747's, Qantas' 747's have has issues but not every single incident has an article even though peoples lives were at risk. But this should not be about the risk to lives, reporting of assumptions and what could have happened. I can't get over the bad faith from both sides of this AfD but seems to be common. I still feel that we should wait 30 days which is when the ATSB will give more detail but I do feel that notability is now debatable however this article should be moved somewhere for improvements and readded once the cause, effects of the cause (once undoubtedly known) and changes to the aviation industry (it is too soon to make assumptions which is what the media is currently doing). @Daniel Case, a bit of good faith would be nice, I listed this with a reason and I'm sure any other editor here would have done the same. Bidgee (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hull was written off (WP:AIRCRASH); notable first 100% successful water landing of a wide-body jet. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things: a) WP:AIRCRASH does not mention hull loss in the notability criteria for their own articles, and even after that, US1549 was only written off because of the methods used to extract the jet from the river. If no hull loss and no deaths were not notable, the notability of British Airways Flight 9 would be questionable (fills A6 only). b) The Airbus A320 is a narrow-body jet - it only has one aisle. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) That refers to in airport/airline/aircraft articles - there is nothing saying hull loss/serious damage is required for accident article notability. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? A notable event does not mean to have fatalities and to be covered in news for months. Elmao (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly is Notable and clearly will be kept. just give it some time and you will figure out what kind of articles survive AfDs and which one dont ( or maybe not). is your question to me rhetorical or you really don't know ???--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my question was rhetorical, because I already knew the answer - no, you really don't have any idea. But it doesn't stop you stating over and over what is and isn't 'clearly' notable though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that this debate would be much shorter if the incident had not involved a Qantas A380. Seems that anything that involves a Qantas aircraft has a sub-group of editors demanding a separate article about it (QF74, most recently). Would love to understand the rationale for the extra focus that other airlines don't seem to enjoy at WP. I hope someone is not trying to prove a point, e.g. that the airline's "perfect" safety record is being tarnished after maintenance jobs were moved offshore? Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentTo be honest, as much as Qantas incident articles get created, they also get AfD'ed with astonishing speed (normally within minutes, but occasionally it's as late as within a couple of hours of creation), so those two forces appear to be in balance if you ask me. It seems to be an unfortunate but standard pratice and at the end of the day some get deleted through AfD and some survive... or in one case deleted then overturned four days later. I don't think it has any bearing on this AfD discussion, it's just a fact of Wikipedia life. -- Rob.au (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your rationale contradicts WP:CRYSTAL Socrates2008 (Talk) 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had supposed that the notability of this topic was so obvious as not to require further elaboration. But, to rebut and refute your point, let us be clear that this topic is notable by virtue of its coverage in detail by numerous reliable and independent sources, per our well-known notability guideline. These include respected sources such as Reuters, the BBC, Aviation Week, Financial Times, you-name-it, &c. So, no further searching is required as the basis for retaining and improving this information is thus established. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, vague and wavey. The GNG itself is far more nuanced than 'look, lots of sources!'. And you have ignored the fact that the GNG is a presumption aswell. This wavery is a standard of notability which nothing on Google News could ever hope to fail frankly. And you have also ignored the fact that for current events, we have a far more appropriate notability guideline than the well known GNG. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have presented policy-based argument. Your contrary opinion above is based upon WP:AIRCRASH which is not policy - not even close. The GNG is amply satisfied in this case and that's that. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vague wave is not a policy based argument, it is simply a vague wave to a policy. That's precisely why it's called a vague wave infact. And no, in my rationale I referred not only to the AIRCRASH essay (which is more relevant to the topic than any vague wave could ever be), but also to the EVENT and GNG guidelines, as well as the NOT#NEWS policy, all with respect to this actual, specific, case. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rebutted the NOT#NEWS argument and will be happy to elaborate if there any points of fact or detail which are unclear. Please clarify your lack of understanding so that we may understand it as talk of vague waves is itself vague without some specifics. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rebutted nothing. You vague waved against NOT#NEWS and toward the GNG. Everybody knows what I mean when I say that, except you, no clarification is necessary on my part. MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, where would you put it? merge under Airbus, A380 or Qantas as some had suggested; maybe Rolls Royce engines; maybe Captain Richard de Crespigny- who is now a celebrity and 'Widely feted as Qantas best pilot', maybe according to the cause (could be bird strikes or even sabotage- we dont know yet); maybe Singapore or Changi Airport; I'd suggest Batam Island because its perhaps the most notable thing to have happended there for a very long time.
- Second, do you repeat everything and have redundant content, lengthy pages and having to make updates in multiple places? or split the content up between pages? which way would you split it and then deal with links or bookmarks from one page to parts of another, lists and categories and so on. Why would a page on A380 have to do with wikiproject or category Singapore/Indonesia? And why would someone reading/printing the page on Qantas need all the details of what may turn out to be a Rolls Royce problem? Why would someone searching QF32 have to sroll way down a Rolls Royce Page?
- Keep things simple, this and similar notable incidents need a well-written article and reference list all in one place... than add correct links to/from other articles, categories, lists, wikiprojects, templates, portals and so on. Easy to write, to ignore, to search for, to read. Easy for editors, easy for readers. --Advanstra (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices" (WP:PG). Don't forget to sign your posts. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thats a good quote to sum it up. Though if a guideline is creating too much controversy or problems, then i dont think its meets WP principle and is no longer a best-known practice. Did i forget to sign somewhere else, or do you suggest adding the sign to each one of the above paragraps ? --Advanstra (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute - the suggestion user has retired over this article. Doesn't that mean an effective Withdraw on the part of the instigator and this discussion should be closed? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 04:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - because so many authors have put so much time and energy into the discussion for and against (rather than the article itself), that is should be kept for prosperity like maybe a great WP heated debate archive --Advanstra (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a withdrawal - simply a severe non-acceptance of the altnerative views and the likely outcome. I've got to say, I'm disturbed by the number of comments I've seen from editors who are convinced that they'll just re-nominate this in a month and see a consensus deletion (eg. [9]). Remember people - this isn't a vote, it's a discussion of issues (ideally to reach consensus). -- Rob.au (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of good faith would have been nice! I didn't retire over this AfD or the article QF32 over "severe non-acceptance of the altnerative views and the likely outcome", so do not make inaccurate statements about other editors when you know nothing about why they have retired. I got sick of people readding QF6 (which was an engine problem rather then a failure like QF32) but also has to do with a few other Wiki and personal life issues. Whether the QF32 article gets listed or not I will not be relisting it for deletion (retired or not retired). Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. Your retirement reason seemed pretty crystal clear to me and I thought I was giving an accurate summary, but evidently I misinterpreted it. My comment regarding editors suggesting an automatic relisting in a month was not directed at you, you're not one of the ones who has said that. -- Rob.au (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're not the aviation industry, we're an encyclopaedia and this article on one instance of a flight suffering a non-fatal, non-injury delay is not required. The incident deserves a referenced sentence in the A380 and Qantas articles, where it is relevant. If we listed every flight with an engine failure, we'd be adding a lot of useless articles. But we could list them somewhere relevant, and that would be helpful. Maybe. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, we weigh importance based on how others prioritize it. If the aviation industry considers the QF32 incident to be of grave concern and requiring analysis and rethinking of how to do things, we consider QF32 to be important. "this article on one instance of a flight suffering a non-fatal, non-injury delay is not required" - That missed the point. This isn't an ordinary non-fatal, non-injury delay. This is a non-fatal, non-injury delay that was a result of a severe engine failure that calls the safety of an entire model of aircraft and its engines in question, prompting Australian and European agencies to conduct investigations. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we weigh importance on encyclopoedic values and historical importance, and nothing else. You won't find an article on every incident that aircraft/airline authorities determined to be serious right there and then, for good reason, because this is not FDA-pedia, but an encyclopoedia. What you should be waiting for is some actual evidence that any of this cautionary concern is actually based on actual design flaws/maintenance practices/environment concerns, and therefore actually leads to something actually changing, because then you will have something to put in an article. Quite where your assertion that the industry is already rethinking how to do things based on QF32 comes from, god knows, it sounds like you are practising nothing more than a bit of fortune telling. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No, we weigh importance on encyclopoedic values and historical importance, and nothing else." - The thing is, it is an encyclopedic value to "importance based on how others prioritize it." - Others being the media, officials, and academics. And "aircraft/airline authorities determined to be serious right there" is historical importance in its field.
"it sounds like you are practising nothing more than a bit of fortune telling." - When judging whether an event that just happened will have notability, you MUST "fortune tell." (And that doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL) And people on Wikipedia have become very good at successfully fortune telling whether something is notable.
"You won't find an article on every incident that aircraft/airline authorities determined to be serious right there and then" In which case has there been an incident categorized as "serious" by aviation regulatory bodies and the airline and the engine manufacturer that haven't survived AFD?
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "When judging whether an event that just happened will have notability, you MUST "fortune tell." - you're on extremely shaky ground to brush off WP:NOTCRYSTAL so lightly. It's policy - and pretty clear policy at that. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a brush off. It's a full-on explanation that was expalined in a previous AFD. I'll copy memset's comment from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6 - I am going to add the underline
"Most of your reasoning relies on the WP:CRYSTALBALL principle, but I think this is invalid for this purpose. This principle just means that Wikipedia articles themselves should not contain speculation and guessing. But when assessing the notability of a recent event, especially the long-term significance, we have to make guesses. Otherwise we would have to delete most articles about recent events, because there is rarely a way to definitely prove lasting notability shortly after the event has happened. As WP:EVENT says, "that an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." (In the same way, every AfD discussion is in fact nothing other than WP:Original research. We don't want this in articles, but it is necessary for assessing the notability of a subject since we will find few reliable sources that directly say "subject X is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.")"
And in response to MikeMoral, memset said:
"Of course we cannot know for sure now how significant the crash will be in a year, we have to guess this using the information available now. Waiting a year before creating articles about events like this, to see how notable they really are (as you seem to suggest), is nonsense, because even if the crash is still significant then, fewer people will care about it then and contribute to the article.
To claim that this crash is not notable and the article should be deleted, you have to explain why exactly it will not be significant in a year or decade. Just mentioning NOTNEWS is not enough."
"To claim that this crash is not notable and the article should be deleted, you have to explain why exactly it will not be significant in a year or decade". I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL either - hence there's a logic flaw in this argument. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a terrorist bombing happens that kills 50 people, you don't see the aftereffects immediately. Yet a Wikipedian is supposed to judge how likely severe aftereffects will be in order to determine a new subject's notability. The Wikipedian can't speculate on what it might be without reliable sources, so WP:CRYSTALBALL applies in that sense. All this means is that the Wikipedians have to use factors that already exist in the recent incident to determine if persistent, continued coverage is likely to happen. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your ideas about what an encylopoedia is, and about what is and is not CRYSTAL, and about the merits/problems of OTHERCRAPEXISTS, are all just frankly bizarre. I really don't want to waste time even pretending they are even worth replying to frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on several recent AFDs (ending in "keep" or "no consensus, default to keep") involving these types of articles, I say that these ideas are actual Wikipedia editing practices. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When none of those Afds were on incidents that are even remotelely comparabll (and nobody can even find an article on any that are either), then this is still a highly irrelevant point to make. MickMacNee (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed its been happenning, both directions (though i dont have the time to read each comment either), its a debate thats trying very hard to find a consensus. Politicians do it all the time, everyone does it in the real world, its human nature. I wouldnt be too worried about it. --Advanstra (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wide range of views, but hard to find a consensus. I get the feeling that there is a desire to have the incident mentioned, but not as to the form. I think a lot of editors are under the impression that if this article is deleted it means the whole incident is removed from Wikipedia. Not so - there is no push to have the incident removed from other relevant articles such as A380. --Pete (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Talk:Airbus A380 and Talk:Qantas instead. For example "I think we should hold off including this in any article (A380 and Qantas) until we know the cause" (which could be 6 months). Thats a push. Have fun trying to find a place on the 1000 Rolls-Royce plc pages, its should be under recent events but its not there either. See my comments above why it wouldnt work to incorprate it elsewhere. As a last resort maybe add it to events on Batam Island, been there a few times, a calm and relaxing place with happy, friendly, easy going people and the editing on its article seem to reflect this. --Advanstra (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warmfuzzygrrl | Talk 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair point, I'll change my view to Rewrite and refocus to be about the general engine incidents, rather than this specific flight, which I agree does raise recentism issues. Robofish (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - WP:AIRCRASH should be changed, seems to me that it currently just serves as a magnet for fanatics --Advanstra (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information a new proposal for AIRCRASH is being worked on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Aircraft grounded by Singapore airlines and directive issued I feel now tips this beyond doubt. GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Singapore Airlines is replacing engines on only 3 of its 11 aircraft with...the same Trent 900 engines. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then doesn't this indicate that it is now about the engine and not the actual flight (since the flight is basically: plane takes off, engine goes bang, plane lands). the article looks more like "reaction to events of Qantas Flight 32" GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's all part of the aftermath of the incident, and what makes the incident notable: It's been "'noticed' to a significant degree by independent sources", per WP:N, and it's definitely now "[a]n event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance", per WP:EVENT. - BilCat (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Qantas incident has given a forum for all the Qantas bashers out there. It would now appear that the cause of the problem has nothing to do with Qantas maintenance or anything else to do with Qantas, or even those evil, foreign, German or Indian maintenance engineers. In the interests of WP:NPOV, the article needs to be totally rewritten, with a new emphasis, and a new name, such as Problem with Rolls Royce Trent 900 aircraft engines in November 2010. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT then! Needing improvement is never a reason to delete an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it now seems obvious where the problem lies, it would be hard to yet find suitable references to create a good article about it. And the present article is crap. That's been the point of several posters on the Delete side. This was always going to be a POV, Qantas attacking article, whether deserved or not. It wasn't deserved, and we don't have the material to create what should exist. It was all too hasty. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that then nobody will ever find this article (Me, for sure not). Elmao (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article title follows the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Aviation accidents and incidents guideline. I do not like this guideline at all as it is frequently problematic and uses an identifier that is not unique, but this is the standard WP follows and a depature from this requires justification. In my view, changing to Problem with Rolls Royce Trent 900 aircraft engines in November 2010 is itself not NPOV. The catalyst for the current chain of events was the Serious Incident on last Thursday's QF32 and that's not an anti-Qantas thing, it's just the fact of the situation. Attempting to disassociate the article from Qantas is not neutral. I'd personally also appreciate if editors would refrain from insisting that the creation and support of this article was about Qantas-bashing (WP:AGF). Many of us have simply always believed this was a notable incident that warranted an article. HiLo48 - calling the present article "crap" is not a justification for deletion as you've already been told and really is not necessary commentary on the work of those who have been working on this article. A bit of civility would be appropriate. Regarding the timing of the article, I notice part of WP:EVENT that those supporting deletion continualy ignore is the WP:ANTICIPATION section where it notes "Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary". As I've said before any article about a Qantas accident or incident always gets AfDed within minutes or at most hours of article creation and I note in this case the nominator has formally withdrawn their nomination. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit surprised about the strong reactions on the fact that this is a Qantas flight and the perceived problems with POV. Personally, I couldn't care less which airline it is, and I think the article (except for the title, which follows convention; but which could be changed; proposals welcome!) is (rightfully) much stronger focussed on the engine and its manufacturer. I'd be happy to throw out any negative Qantas POV, but would like to hear specific examples rather than just saying this is Qantas-bashing... L.tak (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally can't see any - other than matter of fact mention of it being a Qantas flight, the article does not focus on Qantas nor place or infer any blame on them, so I'm not entirely sure what the concern is about. As for the title, the article is about this incident, the catalyst for more detailed engine inspections and action to avoid a repeat incident. At the moment I see no reason to depart from the relevant guideline on naming convention. If the naming convention should be changed is a different discussion. In any case, this discussion fork regarding NPOV should probably be moved to the article's talk page rather than here as NPOV issues have no bearing on the article's notability and would be irrelevant if the article was deleted. -- Rob.au (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did presence or absence on other wikis matter when establishing notability? (but apart from that: some news items are both wikipedia and wikinews items right from their conception; like sports events; and I encourage you to use the info on this wiki on wikinews). L.tak (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested the presence or absence on other wikis matters when establishing notability. My point was that if people want to write about what's happening in the world (news) they should initially use wikinews. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Until some clear conclusions are available this article is news. Wikipedia is being really dumbed down if it degrades from an ENCYCLOPEDIA to a red top news portal. It's happening more and more - I go to Wikipedia to find factual, properly researched and ENCYCLOPEDIC information, and this article tells me nothing that is not already available in the news. In a few month's time, Rolls-Royce should be telling the world what caused the engine failure and this can be either added to the A380 page or the Trent 900 page. Using Wikipedia for ONGOING NEWS is completely wrong and a very sad waste of this excellent ENCYCLOPEDIA. I also agree with the previous pro-delete party that with so many QF32 flights arriving safely, the title of this article is completely inappropriate and only worthy of some tacky Hollywood blockbuster movie - the script for which is already being written no doubt. This is NOT what wikipedia should be about.85.210.85.217 (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Until some clear conclusions are available this article is news." - This Wikipedia clearly accepts articles which start as news. News is just a rough draft of history. BTW using Wikipedia for ongoing news (news that passes WP:NOTNEWS's guidelines) is precisely what makes Wikipedia strong. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (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.
More