The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 74

[edit]

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

To be quite honest, the main reason I'm arguing to delete this article is because it's about an event that is wholly unremarkable. There was an unknown malfunction but there was no real emergency and the plane landed uneventfully. While there is clearly coverage of the event, the incident occurred only a week ago and Wikipedia isn't the news. At best the article is premature as it is full of speculation since authorities haven't determined what even happened. A disclosure; the article had an expired proposed deletion which I declined due to a protest of deletion on the article's talk page, and I even cleaned it up quite a bit, but I still feel it doesn't merit inclusion.-- Atama頭 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if final report reveals other circumstances which result in major changes to the aircraft or way that it is operated. At the moment, we have an uncontained engine failure and successful emergency landing. Coverable by a mention under the airline article at most at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:AIRCRASH, just not a notable incident. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, cant even find any discussion on pprune that shows any concern. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete : unfortunately I'm not convinced there is anything notable about this. If there was more to the story, I would argue for a keep. But as far as I know, these kindof engine malfunctions are fairly common. Danski14^(talk) 17:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A news story about a non-notable incident. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely nothing notable here since this event happens as a daily occurrence; must have been a "slow news day." Bzuk (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delet as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact and not even injuries. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if the investigations, etc., reveal any sort of encyclopedic notability. At the moment, however, this appears to be nothing more than a news story. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "slow news day" - Australian media report pretty much every little thing that happens to Qantas (there are some very minor incidents that I know about that the media missed). Delete, nothing to add to others' comments really. YSSYguy (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing serious here. As others have said, just because it was reported in the news doesn't mean it was notable (or will continue to be notable). -SidewinderX (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A common incident with no evidence of lasting impact. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The incident involved (or was caused by the failure of) a Rolls-Royce RB211 engine, if anything it could have been noted in that article, some aero engine articles have a 'Safety record' or 'Accidents and incidents' section but the RB211 article currently does not. Even then an entry there on this incident would probably also be deleted as non-notable. If it was added now it would look quite strange after the engine had been in service for almost forty years. I was looking for something to salvage but unfortunately I don't think that there's anything that can be kept. There is a brief mention of a service bulletin on the engine, if this is a developing problem then it could be noted at the engine article, could be related to age and metal fatigue but we just don't know at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but open to re-creation if notable findings are made in the investigation and/or an AD is issued and/or the investigation finds any relationship to the outstanding AD that had not yet been applied to the subject engine. An uncontained engine failure is very much not an everyday event as suggested earlier, but at this point this incident doesn't satisfy the WP:AIRCRASH notability tests (nor the default ones) for having its own article. I do, however, think there is a possible argument for a brief inclusion on the Qantas article. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was just a minor incident and is non-notable. An incident like this would probably not even get an entry in an aircraft article, so no stand alone article. -fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain An uncontained engine failure is a) an extremely rare event and b) a serious threat to the plane (shrapnel did pierce some flaps after all, had those pieces penetrated the wings, fuel might have leaked, possibly being ignigted by the sparks from the engine). ATSB has opened incident AO-2010-066, classified 'serious'; I view this article as an easy entry point for people interested in further updates and as such valuable. Herbert.rr (talk) 08:14, 12 September 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.