Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 72

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. MBisanz talk 06:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 72

edit
Qantas Flight 72 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It seems that whenever Qantas has an incident it must have a Wikipedia article. At this stage, according to the media reports, the aircraft descended because of turbulence and made an emergency landing. There doesn't seem to be any severe damage to the aircraft let alone a hull loss. There was no fatalities. It is possible that in the future more information will come out that does make this incident notable or more information about the actual incident that makes it notable, but at this point does not meet Wikipedia and WikiProject Airport's notability criteria. We could list every incident that Qantas has had but we don't. There have been many incidents, including Qantas incidents that are more severe than this and they don't have and shouldn't have an article in an encyclopaedia. Mvjs (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Why is this incident less notable than the Flight 30 incident? Although there was extensive damage on Flight 30, this incident involved an emergency landing and 40 injuries; Flight 30 involved none. Given the recent Qantas incidents that have occured, this is likely to receive alot of media attention in the coming days. Davido321 (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In QF30, an oxygen bottle exploded making a two metre hole in the fuselage and causing a rapid decompression and an emergency landing of the plane. In QF72, from what has come out so far, the plane experienced turbulence, descended and made an emergency landing. Seem like pretty different incidents to me. Yes, the incident will receive a lot of grossly exaggerated and intense media coverage in the coming days. Mvjs (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am confused, because for the QF30 article, you were the one who actually put it up for deletion!?! but now you are saying why that one is notable but this one is not? (Actually for that article you said it was all media hype, and also I see you put this article up for deletion. Perhaps we should give articles some time, rather than doing AfD right at the start? Buckethed (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The difference is in the incidents is that the arguments for the keep of flight 30 incident were due to the cause of the incident in that it was unsual, both in what it was and the fact no-one was injured where similar such events had caused loss of life. Turbulence isnt unusual nor is injury to people hence the recommendation that passengers keep their seat belts on. Gnangarra 11:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Airlines and aircraft doesn't create it's own clear air turbulence (Caused by weather nothing else) which causes it to drop altitude and again the media will just use this when it's not even the fault of the airline. QF30 is different to this incident and should be used to compere as QF30 was caused by a fault and will always have a significant lasting impact unlike QF72 which will be short lived and will not have an impact on the airline industry. Wikipedia is clearly not news. Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whatever the cause of this, it is still notable. If it was clear air turbulence, then it is *not* Qantas' fault (even if it is mechanical failure, even then it may well not be any fault of Qantas or their engineers!). The unfair media coverage shouldn't lead to this article being deleted; in fact, the Wikipedia page would actually serve as a fair, non-biased summary of what actually occured. Whatever the cause, this is still notable. Also note that the Jakarta BA incident was atmospheric, and extremely notable, and no one died or was injured! Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... Minor CAT incidents are not notable enough to have their own article. This has mainly received the coverage it has due to QF30, which was an entirely different incident. Unless the ATSB upgrade their classification of this or it turns out to be anything out of the ordinary, it doesn't meet the notability requirements. OBM | blah blah blah 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any further comment given the ATSB has classified the occurance as an Accident? -- Rob.au (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, only to say that there are guns being jumped here. Also, chaps, I'm not wildly impressed by your actions questioning all the other editors here. OBM | blah blah blah 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS applies. We have an accident in which up to 74 people have been injured, up to 44 of those needing a hospital visit, with 14 of those needing airlifting to a major hospital at the flight's intended destination. This is a highly abnormal event in the context of the Airbus A330, in the context of Qantas and in the context of Australian civil aviation. Just because there is media hype around doesn't automatically mean the underlying accident isn't notable, not does it automatically mean it satisfies WP:NOT#NEWS. Regardless of cause, this is clearly an event of enduring notability in at least three contexts. In regards to your other comment, I haven't queried any editor other than yourself and it was a genuine question. Not that I see what the issue is - this is a discussion, not a vote and there's nothing wrong with querying the arguments. The queries that have been made are trying to encourage the fleshing out of arguments and reasonings, which is part of a healthy AfD process. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rob, I think it's a case of waiting until all the facts are in, to be honest. Breaking news events do not good articles make. I'm sorry I picked your comment to reply to, as my response wasn't specifically aimed at yourself; your question was a good one but I'd wait until we get into "Serious Incident" territory before claiming notability. The fact that Airbus are sending people over is a sign that it could be heading that way but, as I'd said, I think it's a bit early to tell (or write an article about). Anyway, my original concern was that I don't think it really helps the AFD discussion to fight each and every opinion. Give your opinion and move on, unless greater clarification is needed... but asking for clarification on every point is a bit much, I think. OBM | blah blah blah 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Minor CAT incidents are not notable enough to have an article, but very serious incidents like this which might be either CAT or mechanical / electronic failure *speculation as no-one knows what caused it yet* are definitely notable.Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete atm its just a news story, maybe in the future if it causes changes to airline practices, or some as yet unknown event was the cause it can be restored. It already has more information in the RAAF Learmonth article otherwise I'd suggest a merge to that. Gnangarra 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak Keep updated to keep, media reports(radio) today speculate that the incident was mechanical in the tail section o fthe plane and that the emergency landing was to seek urgent medical treatment for a number of the passengers. Still difficult to assess notability for news stories, and it could change again as more info is released, it'll be worth revisiting this again to re-assess notability once the official investigations are published. Gnangarra 14:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although in answer in Davido321, it isn't any less notable than Flight 30 but that wasn't notable either. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Turbulence is a fairly routine event isn't it? It's like having a page on a go-around. \ / (⁂) 11:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Turbulence is a fairly routine event (still not nice though!) but note that we both don't know the cause of this incident yet (anything else is speculation), and, even if turbulence, it was still a rare, notable, serious incident.Buckethed (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Davido321 and it's an encyclopaedia- having one more article on a airline incident which in Australia is pretty important won't kill anybody... --Fred McGarry (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it pretty important? Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--This was not an inconsequential emergency landing with no injuries. People had broken bones and had to be rushed to the hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.37.172 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentMore people get hurt worse than that in multi-vehicle car accidents and structure fires every day, and those incidents do not get encyclopedia articles. I do not see where WP:N says that every airline incident requires an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more people drive everyday, and almost everyone is in a structure every day. not many people fly as frequently as they drive or stay in a structure. motor vehicle operators are also relatively unskilled, requiring only an easy licensing test usually just once in life, at least in north america. airplane operators operate much more advanced equipment and require much more training than an average car driver. there are also many more controls on a plane's movements than for a car, so it is much more restricted. therefore, when something does happen, it is more significant. if we've kept Qantas Flight 30, then we must keep Flight 72. Also, once we learn more, the article will be helpful to those who are trying to learn about turbulence and rapid in-flight descents on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.37.172 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Occurance has been rated as an Accident by the ATSB with 14 people having injuries serious enough to require transport by air ambulance to Perth, up to 30 others attending hospital and up to another 30 with injuries that did not warrant a hospital visit. This is clearly a notable event in its own right. ATSB Media Release -- Rob.au (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this accident also satisfies WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE, even though that's just a project page style guide and not a formal guideline or policy. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It seems that all Qantas articles have to go through an automatic AfD, but as Wikipedia is Not Censored : The majority of the 'deletes' above are either stating no reason, or stating that no-one died, or that it was based on the weather. The *cause* is currently *speculation* only. 14 people were seriously injured. This is a significant incident which is also notable, and receiving worldwide coverage. Many people were injured. Whether the cause is atmospheric or mechanical (and which of these it is, is simply *speculation* at present), this is a significant notable incident and should remain in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to correct you there - 14 people were injured so seriously that they were taken by air ambulance to Perth. Up to 30 further people also attended hospital (it's not currently clear if this was local to Learmonth or not), with up to another 30 further people having injuries not serious enough to need a trip to hospital. These are the numbers given by the ATSB in their media release. So this only strengthens the point - this event is notable regardless of cause. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most deletes are citing WP:NOTNEWS and it clearly fails criteria number 2 on that page. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - It's an accident per the ATSB if only because of multiple serious injuries. Clear air turbulence should be entirely avoidable in a modern airliner and in any case turbulence should not cause control systems failures. The views expressed by some above that this is in some sense a normal occurence is simply wrong. Keep until officia investigation is done. If the finding is mundane, then consider deletion.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear air turbulence cannot be detected and isn't avoidable and control systems failures can happen if the turbulence is severe (In the area of the incident was a Heat low (which is a low pressure system with high temperatures on the ground) and a strong jet stream (BTW I'm not saying it's the cause but it's been discussed by some media outlets). This article can be recreated after the official investigation if it's found to be the aircraft and not the "weather". Bidgee (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are saying that, whatever happened (people were injured!), if it was the weather, then it is NOT NOTABLE, then three points would be (1) We don't know the cause, but the incident was notable, we can only *speculate* as the cause anyway (2) If the plane broke up and everyone died due to [Clear Air Turbulence], should we still delete the article? Because it wasn't Qantas' 'fault'? If so we should delete BA001 / Jakarta Incident too - noone was even injured in that little incident. (3) This article is not about Qantas' 'fault' or 'non-fault', it is not meant to be a forum for aviation enthusiasts vs Qantas haters vs Qantas apologists!. This is a notable incident, and would be if it was British Airways, or any other airline! Buckethed (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reading Bidgee's statement, I was astonished to learn that in fact decades after doi:10.1038/227260a0 CAT detection was possible by doppler radar lidar, or FLIR, it may in fact still not have been implemented as standard in-flight equipment and is still under discussion and development. In any case, CAT forecasts are routinely made and promulgated. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In-flight radar as you say is still in development. (RE: promulgated) Australia doesn't have a doppler network like the US so CAT forecating is hard to do. The above you have used are based on the US not Australia. Also there is no doppler radars in NW WA[2] which is where the incident happened. Bidgee (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per NOTNEWS/recentism, non-notable minor incident other than injuries. Not opposed to restoring it in the future if it proves to have lasting effects, but through deletion review. - BillCJ (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It is a notable incident (actually 'Accident' according to the ATSB!), and had 14 serious injuries + many more less serious injuries requiring hospital treatment, and more still that didn't need hospital treatment. If we say 'non notable other than injuries', we surely mean 'notable with the injuries added', meaning it is 'notable'. The Jakarta incident, for example, is non-notable, except for the volcanic plume and the minor engine glitch Buckethed (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - By "minor incident other than injuries", I meant that some of the injuries to individuals were not minor. Sorry I wasn't clear. ALso, I used to respond to every post I disagreed with in AFDs, until I realized it didn't help my cause to be so argumentative. About the only time responses are needed is for clarification. - BillCJ (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though it hurts me to say this, I must say delete per WP:N. A Ryanair article similar to this was deleted a few weeks ago. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was difficult to find anything on Google for the incident you refer to, but I managed to eventually find an incident in August 2008. This is where 16 people were assessed after getting earache following an in-flight non-explosive depressurisation. This is quite different from the article we discuss today! I wouldn't call an assessment for earache a serious injury, and also, that incident is unlikely to make much difference to Ryanair as they are known to be a budget airline who keeps having problems, unlike Qantas who used to have a brilliant safety record! Buckethed (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page qantas Flight 72, it is been all over asia and perth. News has reported and this should not be deleted!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBSinTransit (talk • contribs) - transferred from article page by WWGB (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment headline news: 10 killed, 38 injured in crash. Why don't we have an article for this?

Back to QF72:

    • It's sensational news today, but will anyone care next year? (Wikipedia is not a news site)
    • No-one dead, some injured, aircraft did not crash, suffered no hull damaged and will not be written off (lack of notability)
    • No changes to air corridors, aircraft design, training, operating procedures or industry regulations (lack of notability) - maybe that will eventually change after the investigation is concluded, but we can't predict the future; if/when that happens, we can look back with the benefit of hindsight and write about how the world of aviation changed forever because of QF72.

An approach that might work here is to create a list of these less noteworthy aviation incidents like this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bus crash with injuries is many orders of magnitude more common (and also many orders of magnitude more likely to occur on a per distance travelled basis) than an aircraft incident involving injuries. By definition bus crashes are therefore many orders of magnitude less notable than aircraft incidents, everything else being the same. I understand (but obviously disagree with) the point you are making, but the example you have given here really doesn't support your argument. Having said all this - I think a list for less notable incidents is a good idea, but I would still maintain the view that Qantas Flight 72 already satisfies notability criteria for its own article (including with respect to WP:NOT#NEWS). I also suspect you would still see squabbles over notability for inclusion in such a list - just as occured regarding this accident's inclusion on the Airbus A330 article (which I'm still struggling to understand given an injury event on this aircraft type is so rare). -- Rob.au (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why do we have an article for this?? Only 7 people died, and no-one was injured. The reason we have an article for this is it is more noteworthy / notable than a bus crash. As is the incident we are discussing here. Other than being notable in its own right, it is notable in that it will be one of the incidents resulting in falling passenger number in Qantas! Buckethed (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Because that disaster had a profound impact on America's space programme for many years afterward. (Shuttles grounded, resdesign required). QF72 has had no such impact on its industry. That may change if something substantial comes out of the investigation, but any such prediction would premature - we don't keep articles because of future significance that they may have. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS + WP:POINTy argument == You're not helping your cause. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • lolComment If you read a (little) more thoroughly, you would see this is a reply to the comment above, who is using this kind of argument to argue for deletion. Also I am not using the example as 'other stuff exists' - it is the Challenger Disaster! Of course it is notable. Just making a comment that numbers of injuries etc are not the variable we use to determine inclusion in Wikipedia or not, as Socrates2008 seems to suggest. Edit : WP:POINT does not apply either, unless it is considered to disruptive to try to prevent censorship of Qantas articles. :) Buckethed (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Though I want all airline incidents to have an article, it can't be done as the rules work against it. According to WP:N, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." There are other accidents like this who don't have any article, so why does this one get one. It does not get one!! -Marcusmax (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There's a big difference between an incident and an accident. In an accident there is always an official investigation, at least in the industrialised world. It may take some time, but once started, an analysis will be done at a far better standard of fact-checking than our usual WP:RS. If an article remains just a stub for two or three years during the investigation, where's the harm?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After an incident occurs, it may not be immediately perceived as notable, but as time passes, this incident may very well prove that it is in fact notable. I also realize that there are other incidents without articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Arguably, the article does not meet notability guidelines. But, instead of deletion (a drastic measure), I believe that the article should be improved; it could add more information about the impact of the incident on Australian aviation and cite more independently verifiable sources. VashiDonsk(T) 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good thing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy or else by me stating this I would break the rules. Here's the thing if we kept this article then we would have to recreate all the other similar ones, and more. I have been crying keep on past afds like this one but the rules are rules and they must be followed. If this article does indeed stay then expect me to re-create others similar to this as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy. I suggest maybe we move on with deletion and in a few weeks or two see if this article meets WP:N in which case an admin can easily bring it back. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's worth mentioning the current focus on Qantas - it may be worth starting a "Criticisms of Qantas" article that documents the airline's maintenance record there, rather than starting a new stub article every time one of its aircraft is in the news. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith comment withdrawn after edit. WWGB (talk) 10:34, 10 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qantas_Flight_72&oldid=1144457520"