English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
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)

Qantas Flight 32

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)

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)
  • Keep Its not too recent, already landed. Cause of something not yet know does not mean it is merely news. Its also a important and notable incident/event. --Advanstra (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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)
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)
Totally agree! Elmao (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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)
  • Delete - endorse MJR's statement. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Keep - There's alot going on withthe incident, and it will take awhile to sort things out. The incident has definitely received "significant media coverge", and has resulted in one airline (so far) grounding its fleet. In the end, I believe there's going to be far too much info to cover in brief entries at the Qantas and A380 pages, not to mention the SIA and Lufthansa pages. This is all better covered in one place. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It is isn't even an accident. No fatalities, no casualties ... Every little aircraft malfunction does merit an stand-alone article. A mention in the A380 article would be ample. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Article creation appears to be a premature case of recentism. No prejudice to recreation if anything notable actually comes out of this. --Kinu t/c 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Concur. - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see any valid reason for deleting this article. Firstly, it is the first major incident attributed to a specific type of aircraft, and it has now seen the grounding of the type within one airline's fleet. Further, each of the points within WP:NOTNEWS can be easily countered or have no validity given the nature and veracity of the incident. Further, 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. Having the article provides the space for the article to develop over time, and helps to give articles structure and form. Deletion of this article would only seek to create problems down the track. Thewinchester (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
If the article is deleted and anyone wants it userfied, I'll be happy to oblige. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
Note to closing admin: Thewinchester (talk · contribs) has !voted (bolded) keep twice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • Keep It is definitely a serious incident and deserve its own page for the details. Let the page be there. In the mean time, it can be edited as and when the details and investigation results are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkurniawan (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • AFDs generally run for a week, so there'll be time to improve it and see if it proves to be notable in during that time. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

*Delete, From the infobox - "Injuries 0, Fatalities 0". HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, OK, I've changed my mind, not because I now believe that this incident really was notable on it's own, but because the fuss being made over it is notable. There has now been BIG media coverage, with all sorts of people trying to push all sorts of barrows, and a few people trying to be objective. We must keep it, but we also must work very hard to make this a balanced article. Won't be easy. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Lack of deaths and/or injuries does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. Let's get away from that idea please. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "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)
Actually its "Injuries 2, Fatalities 0", but why does this fact so important for AfD anyway?--Advanstra (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - article is clearly premature Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
At what point do you think it is no longer 'clearly premature'?--Advanstra (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)


  • Keep, the immediate outcome is irrelevant. To echo what others have said, it's the investigations that will take place and the outcome of the A380 itself. Thenthornthing (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. No fatalities or injuries. A note in the A380 article is needed, but not a whole article! There was a similar incident in August involving a QF B744 and SFO but no article on that one either. Looking at the first incident with the B777, we don't have an article, and only a very fleeting indirect reference in the B777 article. --Pete (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • DELETE per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, this applies as well to all aviation and airlines related articles, Qantas is no exception too! Having said that, since there was an explosion in one of the engines, it should be a wee bit notable enough to add in the parent article of Qantas or Airbus A380. However, as I've said... this article is in itself too weak to stand on its feet per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. No point pushing and fighting the policy, mate. IF we make this an exception, soon there would be a flood of such articles hanging everywhere on WP. Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • @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)
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)
  • Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Not everthing that Qantas does that is reported in the press deserves a WP article. No casualties. Engines fail on aircraft every week. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't that be Keep per WP:AIRCRASH? This article clearly meets WP:AIRCRASH as follows : Principle 2 : Significant / lasting interest or impact (that is WP:CRYSTAL but so is everything recent on WP). Criteria A4 : Resulting in Grounding of A380s. 5. Suspension - all or part of an airline's fleet are grounded. Buckethed (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


  • Keep, as all news companies have this on their front page. Also "the first major incident attributed to a specific type of aircraft" << as previously stated. Elmao (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - you should take a closer look at the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I would strongly argue against deletion of this article. It is a very relevant incident (reportedly, the wing itself got penetrated by debris). It had a lucky outcome, but the potential ramifications are huge. Let's keep the article and use it to collect and organize further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.4 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete This absolutely deserves a mention in the A380 article because it is grounding Quantas' fleet, and possibly warrents a mention in the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 article if RR takes any action (redesigned part, grounding the engine, etc), but it doesn't need its own article. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe that deleting this article is unwarranted. This is currently the most significant incident affecting the A380 (criteria A1 in WP:AIRCRASH) and has caused Qantas to ground its entire A380 fleet (criteria A5). The incident has been reported in Australian, British (eg [1]) and Canadian (eg [2]) media, as well as on newswires (eg [3]) and appears to have triggered significant falls in Airbus and Rolls-Royce shares (according to the Reuters link above) as well as Qantas shares. Failures within commercial jet engines are supposed to be contained within the engine and not allow debris to be ejected from the sides of the engine - whereas QF32 suffered damage to one wing and lost a significant part of the engine cowling. Lack of injuries or fatalities is welcome but does not affect the significance of the incident. --PeterJeremy (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Classic WP:NOTNEWS. It's worthy of a sentence in the A380 or Qantas article. An airplane made an emergency landing this morning. "Injuries-0, Fatalities-0" pretty well sums it up. Thank God that it didn't become a notable incident. Trust me, by 11 November, this will not be news anymore. Mandsford 13:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This incident has been widely covered in the media, and has resulted in Qantas grounding its entire fleet of A380s. For such a high-profile aircraft, this is likely to be considered a large scale incident at Boeing Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Qantas. This would be like (imagining it occured today) the article on American Airlines Flight 96 being deleted hours after the incident occured. Only two years later, 303 people were killed in Turkish Airlines Flight 981. Only several years into commercial service, and tha A380 has had an incident, and it is my opinion from the reaction from Boeing Airbus and (yes, silly to take the opinion of the media into account) the media, are treating this as though it could be an underlying problem with the design of the aircraft. Therefore, I think this should not be counted as a minor incident, but as one that may be important in future sales of the A380. wackywace 13:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but the A380 is an Airbus aircraft, not Boeing. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, silly me. I should know better. Was a bit stressed out when I wrote that. wackywace 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
  • Delete. The incident does not meet WP:AIRCRASH - which I will quote verbatim - "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline" Criteria A1 (first in type) and A5 (grounding) are both in the same section, meaning that this info is more appropriately included in the A-380, RR Trent and Quantas pages, rather than it's own article. And while AIRCRASH is just an essay, it is the only current go-to project specific information for informing on the WP:EFFECT portion of the WP:EVENT Guideline, which is the site-wide consensus backed interpretation of the GNG presumption and WP:NOT#NEWS policy for breaking news type articles, which this clearly is. And while this incident is for obvious reasons getting global coverage, it is far too early to say with any confidence or even proof, that this incident is not a basic violation of NOT#NEWS by meeting the WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE clauses of EVENT. Even in terms of WP:DIVERSE, the case is weak (and no, in depth coverage in sources like the Aviation Herald as well as coverage in the news, does not count as diversity for air incidents.) MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Strong Keep - I don't care that this is too recent, that Wikipedia is not a news site or whatever, removing the article now will only lead to its reinstatement later as information develops. As it so happens, the nature of Wikipedia means it is one of the best resources in my vast searching of the Internet for researching this type of incident - I immediately came here to read further technical and incident details, knowing there would be a page for this under the usual format Airline_Flight_Number. The article can be expanded later with the results of an investigation, whether they suggest there was a major fault or not. I am just about sick and tired of Wikipedia users reducing themselves to petty arguments over an article on valid topics and users unfamiliar with the site (like me) quoting hundreds of "policies" about what can or cannot be written. I would urge someone to pick fault with the factual information of the article discussed here, because that it is - completely factual. Factual is what Wikipedia does best; I can understand opinion pieces being debatable, but factual information is just that. I wouldn't even consider that article a stub; it is already on the path to being a real encyclopaedia article, unlike most of the other "stubs" on the site. Why don't you spend some time chasing the other articles on Wikipedia which aren't noteworthy and only contain a line or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.241.118 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC) — 86.152.241.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • And why don't you learn to assume good faith? We have our policies and guidelines for a reason. If you "don't care" about them, then sorry, I don't see why your !vote should count. Closing admin please note: this is the IP's first edit. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a notable accident in terms of it being the first for the A380 series - no matter what way one looks at it, it passes WP:N even now, and will easily do so once the investigation is complete. Orderinchaos 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, I've established above that this isn't the first recorded incident of engine troubles with the A380, see the BBC link provided. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • "certainly the most serious incident that the A380 has experienced since it entered operations", [4], Rolls Ropyce and EADS share prices drop as a result. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You could probably down another A380 with the turbulence from that massive WP:VAGUEWAVE. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It nearly meets criteria 1 (1st incident; ok maybe its the second) and 5 (the entire Quatas A380 fleet is grounded) It's been a top headline for half a day on the BBC. The a380 is a 'flagship' aircraft and incidents involving it are more notable than with other aircraft.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That is but an essay, not a guideline. Not to mention, is it really such a surprise that it's top news on the BBC? Incident involves national carrier of a Commonwealth realm; flight originated in London; incident forced landing in a Commonwealth country; engine maker is British. Not all that surprising, imo. Oh, and, you said it yourself: "it's been a top headline". It's a news event, not an encyclopaedic air incident. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • A1 + A5 <> standalone article. Read the actual essay. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Right now, the world is talking about it! We do not want lives to be taken. Take this incident seriously. This is no joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinSQ800-805 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. --Rat2.Call me Remy 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Most engine failures on a modern jetliner are barely worth a footnote. They are no big deal. I believe this one is special though because it appears to have blown a hole through the wing from the pictures (yes, O.R. I know), and is the first major incident for this type of airplane. Regardless of damage, this has caught well over 2000 hits on Google News, and obviously with this number of comments on this page is very significant. If in two months it is decided that it is not noteworthy, then delete it. I say keep it for now. Falconusp t c 15:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure it's got news hits, because it is news. Wikipedia, however, is not news. Grsz11 15:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable, and a developing story: there are suggestions that it might have ramifications for the future sales of Airbus A380s as the Chinese are on the brink of putting in an order and might now reconsider [5] I've done some work to try to build up the article as I think it's a notable event: I came here to Wiki to read more about ti and was disappointed by how undeveloped the article is. It's too early to say it's not notable. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Suggest you visit WP:CRYSTAL – never too early to say it's not notable; always to early to say it is. We should be taking the stance that if it becomes notable, we have an article, not we have an article and delete it if it's decided it's not notable. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd say it already is notable - descibed as "potentially life-threatening and extremely rare" by aircraft engineers; Rolls-Royce and EADS share prices fall as aresult of the incident; described as "certainly the most serious incident that the A380 has experienced since it entered operations", and concerns have been voiced that this incident may be due to a "major problem", rather than being maintenance-related. Also at least one person injured on the ground. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it would pass WP:AIRCRASH. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - It starts with WP:AIRCRASH A1 and A5. Although A2 is not satisfied at this time because a directive has not been given from an official body, it is significant that the manufacturers Airbus and Rolls Royce advised Singapore Airlines to conduct "precautionary technical checks", which resulted in them "delaying all flights operating our A380 aircraft". [6] While in due course we'll know more about this, even if these checks are only transitory, it already places the incident into the realm of extraordinary for the A380 and is not something we can ignore in an assessment of notability. On this point I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the original nomination - "too recent" and "sometime before a cause of the failure". In this incident, the cause of failure is not an element of its notability (although it may well turn out to be an additional element of notability if it gives rise to formally meeting WP:AIRCRASH A2). The outcome of the investigation will be important information to add to the article, but key elements of notability have been established without it. My argument is therefore not "let it grow into notability" - in my view it is already notable, even though more details that will get added to the article will come in time. I recognise (and agree with) the essay's note about only meeting criteria in the "Aircraft and airlines" section, however when it's hitting multiple sub-categories amongst other factors (the Airbus/RR recommendation and impact on Singapore Airlines), there is a strong case for having an individual article. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The A criteria are grouped together precisely because meeting more of them over time doesn't increase the incident's notability. Infact, the precautionary checks and notices are meaningless in that regard, they are simply an inevitable and predictable consequence of an A1-criteria meeting engine failure, which is the exact sort of prior topic specific knowledge that the essay already incorporates. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I did not say meeting A2 later would increase its notability. As per my argument above, my view is that notability has been established and retention of the article is justified. The whole point I just made there was that the possibility or not of later meeting A2 was not currently a consideration as to the current notability of the article. The initial reason for nomination was based on us having to wait for an outcome when that's not the critical factor here. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I am not seeing where you argued that notability is established, except by stating it meets one or more of the A-criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I accept you have a different opinion but my comments are quite clear. Once again, notability is justified due to a combination of WP:AIRCRASH A1, A5 and other factors which in my view are too broad to apply the essay's notation. I note that most editors commenting on this issue are ignoring the fact that the essay is not firmly insisting that coverage must be diverted to aircraft or airline pages, but says "normally". The specific circumstances of this case cutting across multiple factors are the key here. It is also has to be remembered that it is an essay, not a guideline. I felt it unnecessary to previously comment that the article quite obviously passes the WP:GNG test but it seems that this needs to be said. For what it's worth I totally agree with Bongwarrior and Daniel Case's later arguments below. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I'll try one last time - you have not said what these other factors are, in addition to AIRCRASH A - criteria. You are free to argue all you want that you can both cite the essay as showing notability, at the same time as acknowledging that it recommends not creating an article in those cases, but I really don't see how any closer is supposed to take that seriously. And the GNG is pretty irrelevant, it would show notability for every single thing on Google news right now, the proper guideline is EVENT in the general case for those types of articles. I've read Bongwarrior's argument, and he's made a serious error in understanding some other essays, and Daniel Case seems to have just repeated your error over interpreting AIRCRASH, infact even worse, he seems to think Wikipedia writes an article for any incident that grounds a fleet - this realy couldn't be further from the truth. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm afraid this appears to be a case where you have your opinion (which is fine), but don't appear to be prepared to tolerate my arguments. I view that you are attempting to interpret WP:AIRCRASH in an excessively strict manner and I have not seen a convincing justification for this. The essay makes a valid point in general about hitting items in the A section not always requiring a new article, but in this case a new article is justified in my opinion. There is more than enough to discuss in this article to justify being more than a section in either the Airbus A380 or Qantas articles. I also notice that many of the "Delete" comments use WP:AIRCRASH as a reference, but from those discussing it, there does seem to be consensus that it has hit A1 and A5, which would imply a "Merge" from those who don't agree with "Keep". I think that's unfortunate, because there's been almost no discussion on where a Merge would even go. Some do say the A380 article, some say the Qantas article. In my view it cuts significantly across both which is what leads me to the conclusion that stand-alone article is justified. I have put all my reasons there, but if you choose to not see them, I can't do much more. -- Rob.au (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
                • The essay says what it says, it is not a strict interpretation at all to say that only meeting one or more A criteria means an article is still not recommended, it's right there in black and white. And I finally see what your extra reasons are because...you finally stated what they were. Bingo. Frankly, the lack of a clear merge target is a really weak justification imho, it puts the convenience of editors before proper consideration of weight and notability. And articles are split across multiple locations all the time here, it's not rocket science. The clear primary merge target will emerge once the true cause is known - maintenance, design, or environment. Not knowing it now is no excuse for keeping this article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • The lack of a clear merge target was not part of my justification, only an observation. -- Rob.au (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • Sigh. Well, whatever the justification is suppose to be then, I'm sure it's great, but I'm not going down this road again, and I won't be continuing in this thread anymore. I'm out. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete fail both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The guideline even says "if the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline"—Chris!c/t 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although this is still a very recent incident, and was a major malfunction rather than a crash or loss of the aircraft, it is significant in that it is very unusual for a modern aircraft engine to fail in the way that this has apparently done, and it has resulted in the grounding of all the aircraft of this type. Lynbarn (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Not quite true to say that "all the aircraft of this type" have been grounded: only Qantas has grounded its A380s, and Singapore Airlines is delaying flights on A380s. Other airlines have not said they are grounding their A380s. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not disagreeing with you, but keep in mind that not all operators use RR engines and this would not imapct those that don't (and yes, this doesn't change the fact that SQ are still flying theirs). -- Rob.au (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        • All operators of the A380 powered by RR engines have grounded/'delayed' their fleets. I am of the opinion that Singapore's term 'delayed' is merely a PR move, though they have not provided clear information as to what they mean by the term. The fact that this is clearly an engine issue means that it can be considered all aircraft of the type have been grounded, as the EA engine A380 is a different type. For the record the RR A380 operators are Qantas, Singapore, and Lufthansa (which is substituting an A340 on its normal A380 run to Johannesburg). Ravendrop (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Daily Tele3graph reports this is the 3rd incident on Airbus A380s with this type of engine (I've added it to the article) - ie possibly a major problem is becoming apparent, rather than a one-off incident. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)

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)

  • (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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment. A number of Keep supporters have given as their reason I see no reason why this should be deleted. While I'm sure those posts were made in good faith, I hope those editors realise soon how illogical and unhelpful such comments are. The have been many reasons for deletion given here. Anyone who truly "sees none" simply isn't looking. You presumably think that there is something wrong with those reasons which you presumably DO see, so please tell us what that is. Otherwise, you are just being rude to those people who HAVE given their good faith reasons for deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per WP:NOTNEWS. A brief mention in the article on the aircraft is all that is needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP - this article should be kept as a testiment to Airbus' failure as a commercial plane produce. It's their own fault for stealing the idea from McDonnell Douglas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.136.132 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC) — 89.168.136.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Clearly meets the notability guidelines with the sources provided. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:VAGUEWAVE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:VAGUEWAVE in itself is VAGUEWAVE. Lugnuts (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        • So what? As long as the closer understands what I meant, which they will, then I honeslty don't think I care. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
          • The closing nom will then have to take both links to the guidance in context then. Which will result in a keep. Lugnuts (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
            • You have some bizarre ideas about what closers are actually instructed to do then, is all I can say to that. In Afd's like this, where cluefull analysis incorporated in numerous non-vague wave votes abound, lazy vague waves like yours are simply thrown out. He is not required sit down and worry himself to death as to whether what you said, and might or might not have meant, makes sense once they've carefully studied the article for themselves. Infact, if he's got any sense he takes one look at your vote and realises that it is so poor, no third party could ever hope to judge from it whether you know what you are talking about or not in terms of actual policy, and simply ignore it on basic competency grounds, rather than risk involving their own interpretations in the outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Firstly, this meets the standard notability guidelines, many sources from major news sites, and so on. Although wikipedia is NOTNEWS, anything notable that occurs will tend to be in the news. I completely agree that general news articles should not be part of wikipedia, but incidents / events / discoveries which are notable in their own right certainly do have a place on Wikipedia. Another point : Qantas Flight 30 exists on wikipedia, and yet (fortunately!) nobody died. I know that the existence of other articles alone cannot be the basis of a 'keep', however that was another example of a non-fatal but significant, notable incident. The basis of this 'keep' is the combination of notability, the fact that this was a very serious failure (in fact, it is just luck that the fragments went through the wing rather than the cabin), and that it has caused Qantas to ground their A380s. This is an unusual, notable event, with significant coverage / notability, and significant effects on the aviation industry and Rolls Royce / Airbus. Buckethed (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You haven't said at all how this meets the standard notability guidelines (the relevant one being EVENT if you actually want to assert it in a NOT#NEWS case like this, not the GNG, for which anything on Google News would pass if you ignore the fact the nomination is NOT#NEWS). Also, you have asserted that this is a very serious/unusual/notable/significant aviation incident which is worthy of its own article, yet you have completely ignored the one page we have which defines those circumnstances based on actual industry relevant criteria, WP:AIRCRASH. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Hello again :) Firstly, I asserted that it is a very serious / unusual etc aviation incident, but ignored the page WP:AIRCRASH. Actually, a comment on the article is 'I rarely ever see a failure like this on any engine' from a senior aircraft engineer - so that surely is unusual. Also, from WP:AIRCRASH, the item is notable, as it is verifiably of lasting interest, being the first incident with an A380, being a very unusual incident, and having a significant global impact. This article also clearly meets WP:AIRCRASH as follows : Principle 2 : Significant / lasting interest or impact (that is WP:CRYSTAL but so is everything recent on WP). Criteria A4 : Resulting in Grounding of A380s. 5. Suspension - all or part of an airline's fleet are grounded.

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)

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)
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)
  • Delete Many people have argued that this is independently notable. Since it is so recent, this is WP:CRYSTAL and inappropriate. If it becomes notable, then we can have an article on it, not before. Being in the news is not notability. --NYKevin @849, i.e. 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • but being on front-page news, and everyone knowing about it may be notable. 86.125.184.203 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as a case of "recentism." No crash, no one killed. Just having some news coverage does not a component failure on a plane something that encyclopedias should have an article about forever. Edison (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, this is a victim of recentism and an overeagerness to rush to Wikipedia and flood the parge with excessive detail. We'd never get such detail, or an entire article, on a single engine failure of a de Havilland Comet or a Boeing 747, the only difference is those were historical and past tense while this is a current event. This is uneven coverage, either give the single engine failures of other aircraft the same coverage, or reduce this over-detailing. I witnessed and argued against the same kind of outpourings on the Eurostar Winter 2010 failures, the coverage of was close onto 40 times the size of the 1996 Winter failings while being practically identical in scale and damage, the only difference was overexcited people reading the news and then jamming it up on the wikipedia article by the hundreds on the spur of the moment. Kyteto (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument. The fact that Wikipedia lacks articles about events longer ago doesn't mean we have to delete articles about recent events. -- memset (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • keep, due to extensive coverage in reliable sources. Citing WP:NOTNEWS by itself is not a reason for deletion, it needs to be proven that the event will have no lasting notability. "Too recent" is not an argument (there is no such thing as "recentism"), and WP:AIRCRASH is not a guideline. It is to early to tell if the event has lasting notability or not, therefore the article should not be irreversibly deleted but kept for now. --memset (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • NOT#NEWS is a perfectly valid stand-alone reason for deletion per the deletion policy, and recentism is a well understood concept among most experienced editors, it does exist and it is a real problem, and it's getting worse by the day. What is not a valid argument is claiming that because it's too soon to establish historical notability, you cannot delete it for having no historical notability. Neither is 'keep now, reconsider later'. This is has never ever been part of our inclusion policies at all. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • We don't have "inclusion policies", we don't have to discuss and reach a consensus in order to include an article; instead we have to do this to delete an article. If we cannot determine (prove, reach a consensus) that a topic is not notable (for example, because it is too early to tell), then we keep the article. An no, just waving NOTNEWS is not a valid reason for deletion, the only thing that gets worse by day is that some people believe this. --memset (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • keep for now First serious failure with the biggest airplane in the world and grounding of a full fleet has resulted in world-wide concern. That gives enough grounds to assume this is not simply over yet; there is a limit to the applicability of not-news if the coverage is very large; we could however reconsider in 1 month or so... L.tak (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "keep for now" has never been a wikipedia policy. If you vote keep, you are effectively stating that as long as our policies don't change in the future, then the article belongs here forever. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, forever is a long time. What I wanted to point out is that consensus can change and that increased understanding might lead to me endorsing a delete in time. But everything now points to an event notable to wikipedia. L.tak (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        • No, the policies on what is and isn't notable can change, but if they don't, then the only way consensus on notability can change over time is if a delete becomes a keep, based on new evidence/sources being uncovered, or rediscovered. If it goes the other way, and over time a keep becomes a delete, then pretty obviously, the first judgement was wrong, and was based on either speculation, assumption, or a misunderstanding of the actual policy, since corrected. MickMacNee (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Of course the judgement can change in any direction. Since someone has nominated the article now, we have to decide now whether the topic is going to have lasting notability. Unfortunately, since the event is recent, we have only limited information to make this decision, and have to rely on speculation and assumption (this is a not problem, don't confuse this with the unrelated WP:CRYSTAL policy). It is entirely possible that we will come to a different conclusion when more information is available. However, there is indeed an asymmetry: While a wrong decision not to delete an article can easily be corrected later by nominating it again with new, then available arguments, a wrong decision to delete the article is irreversible. This is why we keep articles by default, and delete them only when we can be sure that the topic is indeed not notable.--memset (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I just really don't know where you got these ideas at all, they are so wrong on so many levels. Deletion is not irreversible, that is simply a basic fact, hard-wired into policy. And early Afd's do not need to rest on guesswork, that is again, hard wired in policy. People are perfectly allowed to back up their keep arguments with forward looking sources, or with essays that are based on the experience of past cases, like AIRCRASH, and even on guidelines based on past general experience, like EVENT, but no, guesswork and unsupported speculation/prediction, is completely inadmissable as pure junk science. And the 'keep by default' maxim realy has absolutely nothing to do with not being sure, or it being too early to judge. If the closure thinks that 'we' are not sure, he declares 'no consensus'. Again, this is hard wired into the deletion policy. Once someone closes as keep, that's it, and no, you do not get a second bite of the cherry later on unless actual policy changes, or the original deicision was proven to be incompetent. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I am not saying you are wrong on very many levels; yet I don't agree with you as on many levels; there is a grey area between black and white. Many people here are admitting they have no crystal ball, but indicate that the info we have now is over the treshold of notability in their judgement. That is not keep by default (please don't tell them they do) as they indicate this is an exceptional case. Furthermore, the basic fact that deletion is not irreversible might be true in theory; however for the average user a once-deleted article can not be used anymore and thus de facto irreversible for many. Also the, once someone closes as keep, that's it might be hard wired; practice shows there are other possibilities (re-noms etc)L.tak (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
                • This is not an exceptional case by any stretch of the imagination. Articles that go through 10 Afds because there really is a conflict between policies and then Jimbo just IAR deletes it, that is an exceptional case. This Afd can be, and should be, dealt with using normal policies and decent, cluefull argumentation. Anyone relying on guesswork or any sort of fudge of policy, really doesn't know the policies at all, because the things I mentioned really are hard wired, for really good reasons. Wikipedia is nearly 5 years old now, it's time to stop pretending that routine stuff like this is a 'grey area'. It isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I gave my arguments why I thought this was notable: uncontained engine failure (+loss of a safety critical element; but I admit I haven't brought up that point yet; resulting in replacement of 2 other engines, but again, I hadn't brought that up before); the first of such an incident in the world's largest commercial jetliner; supplemented by very much, very much more than the avarage news coverage by reliable sources. Those things are quite special and that's why I called them exceptional. I feel at such a moment we are far beyond WP:NOTNEWS and it shows that the the WP:aircrash guidelines (in beta testing) are not well capable of working with them. So we'll have to make our own judgement as I don't think it is "routine stuff": that's what I'd almost define as a grey area. [Unfortunately I can not react on Jimbo and IAR, because I have not clue what you are hinting at.] L.tak (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • If you think that this is such a special/extraordinary/notable situation, and you want to completely ignore the essay which is built on past Wikipedia aircrash article experience, then please, by all means, go and find the last time a brand new large aircraft model suffered an uncontained engine failure for the first time, and see if it actually has a whole separate article on Wikipedia. And if it doesn't, see if you would have any hope at all of writing one about it using sources available today, without relying solely on contemporary news reporting, to be able to show how it was historically notable. I guarantee you won't be able to do either. Wikipedia is too old to be even pretending that this stuff is brand new process/procedure/precedent, which is what the Jimbo reference is all about, but granted, you had to be there to understand that one. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
                      • That is a very interesting suggestion; and it shows we have come to the nature of our debate. I would like to work this out a bit. If a similar widebody (B777, A330/A340, doubting about B747 as that was developed in an age when safety levels were much lower) had a first in-revenue-flight failure of a safety critical part as its first incident; and if that incident would lead to significant grounding (not just a few hours), replacement on other aircraft and worldwide news coverage, I would be in favour of an article on that. I do not know if such incidents exist or are covered in wikipedia (the 787 uncontained engine failure comes to mind, but that was a test flight, which would make it not notable for its own article) but guessed that such things simply didn't exist (either when teh first incidents were other things [a crash], making the subject unnotable; or the first incidents were isolated incidents with no effect on other airplanes/lines). But I could be wrong. i) Would you know of such events (notable in my book as I defined) in those other planes and ii) how do you think about my criteria (espacially the increased level of notability of wide bodies; which seems to be in no guideline?) L.tak (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
                        • I know of no such incidents, but that doesn't mean they've never happened. The point is, none of the people asserting that the sequence you describe is what forms an automatically notable aspect of aviation history, can find an example from history either. Even if people could find one that didn't have an article yet, but could otherwise demonstrate the lasting coverage exists to create it, that would be better than the blind assertion that's been going on in here on that score. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                          • MMN, I agree that it is not sure if they ever happened. But I hope my posts made clear why I find this notable and what my reasoning was; and why I have the feeling that this is not a standard case and thus not similar to the very many cases of non-notable incidents. I am afraid I have no further means to convince you (and since all arguments seem to have been exchanged I will rest here), but at least this helped to get our ideas specific and I thank you for that. L.tak (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                            • L.tak, I think what you said fits perfectely with WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." From "below": "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." I beleive tht is where we are no, that ithis event is likely to be notable. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
                              • BilCat, agreed! highlighted my post above to be clearer... L.tak (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. Not really serious enough to warrant an own article. Content of the article should be condensed to be included as summary in the incident section of the Qantas, A380 and Trent900 articles. --Denniss (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable in this case. This article clearly meets WP:AIRCRASH as follows : Principle 2 : Significant / lasting interest or impact (that is WP:CRYSTAL but so is everything recent on WP). Criteria A4 : Resulting in Grounding of A380s. 5. Suspension - all or part of an airline's fleet are grounded. Buckethed (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into Airbus_A380#Notable_incidents. This article meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability; however, as a non-hull-loss, non-fatal incident, it could be adequately summarized within the aircraft model's main entry. byronshock (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It's the first incident involving an A380. It should be maintained on wikipedia. Adzma (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Neutral In a high profile incident like this, someone is always going to create an article and someone else is always going to raise the AfD, that's just the way it works. But having a heated debate just hours after the incident isn't going to be very helpful, there is no need to waste vast quantities of effort in a mad rush to judgement in the heat of the moment. As our esteemed contributor Mjroots points out, give it a week and things will be much clearer. 84.9.38.188 (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Esteemed? Me? Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. What next, a pilot sneezes and we write an article about it. Should be a redirect to the aircraft article, perhaps. --John (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Airbus A380 article - failing both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH are reasons enough that this article should not be standalone - it's not a disaster, nobody died, note it in the right place and shut this thing down! BarkingFish 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:AIRCRASH, notable first incident.Sumbuddi (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. No one died, no one injured, minor incident in overall scheme of things. F (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:NOTNEWS says that a news event depends on how ongoing the coverage is and how much analysis and scrutiny it's getting. I don't see how this fails WP:NOTNEWS. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The incident is receiving substantial coverage, such as here from The New York Times and is being treated as a major issue in terms of the reliability of Rolls Royce's Trent 900 / 1000 family of engines. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And where is the essay/guideline/policy that says that every major issue for an aircraft engine gets its own article on Wikipedia? We do actually have an article on the actual engine, what's stopping us from covering it there? Is it essential to have a whole separate article complete with infobox and other pretty stuff, detailing everything from the number of survivors, the name of the aircraft, and the exact time it landed, to be able to give adequate coverage to the effect this incident had on the engine family? MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Infact, let's get real here. That NYT article's basic topic is the failure of the engine and it's possible impact on Rolls Royce. Are you seriously suggesting that there is enough coverage out there on the interwebs to create and sustain the article Rolls-Royce Trent 900 failure of 4 November 2010, and that this would stand the test of time of historical notability and significance, even if in the completely unlikely event that the complete downfall of the company could be traced back to this one failure? Really? In an encyclopoedia? Maybe in Aviation-pedia, possibly, but not Wikipedia. This is a perfect illustration of exactly why the GNG is a presumption, and not a free pass, especially for news events. MickMacNee (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep 120.151.44.67 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — 120.151.44.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep The first incident of the Airbus A380 should be kept in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.99.162 (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — 189.137.99.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete..but sometimes articles have enough input to become a standalone article. I haven't seen much input in this one, but I have seen that there has been a lot of coverage in the news, but as much people have said above WP:AIRCRASH should prevail here. So delete and merge the info with Qantas article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mostly per WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. Although deletion may possibly be the correct call down the road, I think the nomination was a little hasty in this case. Not wrong, just a little too quick for my liking. It will be virtually impossible to make a determination one way or the other while the event is still current. I also tend to think that WP:NOTNEWS gets overused slightly; even if something just happened yesterday, that doesn't automatically preclude it from being a notable event. As things stand, I think this has a decent chance for survival, mainly because of the type of aircraft involved and the potential ramifications, but it's probably best to table the issue for now and renominate in a few months, if desired, when we won't have to rely almost exclusively on guesswork. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Keeping per 2 essays is not exactly a strong argument. And citing 2 essays that don't even refer to this 'wait and see' approach is even weaker. CHANCE is about giving people enough time to develop an article that they should already be able to prove, is justified. Similarly, DEMOLISH is about encouraging people to try and improve articles instead of deleting half finished ones, but again, the presumption is that the article is already on a subject worthy of inclusion. There are no essays that recommend this 'wait and see' approach to notability, for really really good reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. My opinion on this one was solicited; apparently someone is concerned there is some votestacking being attempted. For now I trust that the usual AfD process will sort that out.

    As for this article, I don't see why we should delete it. It seems to meet criterion A5 at WP:AIRCRASH in a broad way, by forcing the grounding of a fleet of aircraft and raising issues with the engine. It has received more than enough news coverage. If it isn't worthy of its own article over time, we can easily incorporate what has already been written into another article.

    I am mystified at why this was nrominated; it seems some editors feel a need for stricter standards. Well, they can have that —by actually attempting to modify those standards, not setting a precedent at AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Comment That section is headed If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline. --John (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep: an accident does not have to have casualties to be notable. The fact that an engine break up into pieces (not just fails and stops working) is very notable. The fact that it occurred on an Airbus A380 with nearly 500 passengers lives at risks certainly makes this notable. The fact that large chunks fell on the ground and could have killed people also makes this accident notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
  • Merge to Airbus A380, as an important event in the history of this product. As it has some notability, and affects the history of the product, it should be in the product article. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: How is QF32 any different in notability from US Airways Flight 1549? Both had engine trouble, both landed safely (albeit the latter in a river), and all passengers and crew on board survived. I don't think we had an AfD debate on the notability of Flight 1549 (correct me if I am wrong) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • Delete WP:AIRCRASH Nicob1984 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: People have used WP:AIRCRASH to justify its keeping. Are you using a specific user's rationale? Or if it is your own, what is it? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since the plane landed with no one killed, and since the company has temporarily grounded its Airbus planes, it does seem like a story that belongs inside the Qantas article. However, maybe this story could be userfied to see if anything major comes of it. Either that, or the OP could stash the info on his computer and wait. But planes have mechanical problems all the time, and unless they crash, it's usually just a news blurb. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is the most serious incident ever to happen to Qantas, after the 747 exploding oxygen tank. Do not delete as this is a useful source of awareness for all wikipedia visitors Ceecookie (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, no fatalities no injuries, in 2 weeks time won't be even in the news cycle. LibStar (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Strong keep - This is a catastrophic uncontained engine failure that appears to be the A380 equivalent of American Airlines Flight 96. Of particular significance is the damage the failing engine did to the aircraft's control systems. In my view, an important issue will be whether this incident is followed by an A380 equivalent of Turkish Airlines Flight 981. That would be more likely if the incident is treated as the sort of trivial incident that doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh? Did you really just suggest that if Wikipedia doesn't keep this article, there is likely to be a fatal accident? MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I did not suggest that. Read my suggestion again. Major air crashes have been known to be preceded by significant incidents involving other aircraft that were wrongly perceived at the time to be trivial. For example, Air France Flight 4590 was preceded by four previous Concorde tyre incidents, the first of which caused wing and control systems damage comparable with the damage that occurred on QF32. Prior to Air France Flight 4590, little or nothing was done to address the Concorde design and operations issues revealed by these incidents, with tragic consequences. If you think that incidents such as these incidents, American Airlines Flight 96, and QF32 were trivial incidents, try explaining your views to the families of the victims of Air France Flight 4590 and Turkish Airlines Flight 981. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Seriously, what is your actual reason for keeping this article? I'm not seeing it at all, and we are not in the business of keeping articles on any and all air accidents, just in case their signficance increases massively later on, due to some future fatal crash. We are not the CAA record service, or part of the active air accident learning/prevention system. We document already notable crashes for future generations, as a general encycloedia, that's our only role. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
          • You are arguing your case from a wrong premise. The article has already been created. The onus is therefore on those who advocate deletion to establish that the article should be deleted. Over the last 24 hours or so, you seem to have become a minority of one in favour of deletion. FWIW, the incident clearly meets criteria A1 and A5, and arguably also A4 (RR engined A380s). It is likely eventually to meet criterion A2 and perhaps also A6. It also meets criterion C1. The engine failure caused a fuel leak and loss of the ability to control engine no 1 and extend the flaps and slats. The aircraft therefore landed in a partially uncontrolled configuration at a high speed, blowing several tyres. Most importantly, the pilots were unable to shut down engine no 1 after landing. The combination of fuel leak, overheated undercarriage and uncontrolled running engine was obviously a major fire hazard. (For an example of what can be caused by overheated undercarriage alone, see Swissair Flight 306.) The number 1 engine had to be shut down by the fire brigade. Nothing quite like this had ever happened before, especially with an A380. The aircraft as a whole, including engine no 1, suffered "significant damage" requiring "hefty repairs" (The Weekend Australian, 6 November). The incident is therefore at least as significant as Cathay Pacific Flight 780 and British Airways Flight 38, which were caused by nothing more complicated than contaminated fuel and frozen fuel, respectively, but, like this incident, had very nearly deadly consequences due to interference with the pilots' ability to control the aircraft. I believe that this incident was a more serious incident than those two, and have therefore just changed my vote to "strong keep". Now, please explain why you say the article should be deleted. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
            • My premise is perfectly sound. I (and many others) have already more than adequately given the case for deletion, per the relevant guidance. And I think you will find that you are required to give a policy backed reason to be allowed to vote keep. CP780 and BA38 have nothing, not one single thing, in common with this incident that would ever justify such a blatant other crap exists argument. This is the first significant incident for the A380? This is not brand new information, and was already known by everybody above as they voted above, some with policy behind them, some by simply saying 'omfg, first ever A380 accident! clearly notable!'. It was always going to have an accident sometime, and that is not an automatic criteria for inclusion. And the essay could not be clearer - it doesn't matter how many A-critera stack up, this is also still not a free pass for an entire article. And you've totally misunderstood what C1 is for, it doesn't meet that at all. AIRCRASH deals with what is an isn't worthy of an individual article based on all the factors you have mentioned, with an eye to historical significance, not the news value wow-factors you have detailed in the lengthy personal analysis above, which has more than a whiff of original research/speculation about it, and is more than a little bit disingenuous (the Boeing 777 on BA38 is not designed to land without either of it's engines, while the A380 is designed to land on just two of its four engines). You can change your vote to 'super duper extra strong' keep if you want, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference at all in an Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep clearly meets WP:N, airline grounds the fleet, possible design flaw in the engine itself suspected. How often do modern airliners lose a part of the engine in flight ???--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's 'clearly' nothing, enough of this pointless argument by assertion, and speculation on 'possible' design flaws. And is your question rhetorical, or do you really not know? MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Keep - Seriously relevent to wikipedia involves the first grounding of the Airbus A380 series and invloved serious damage to left wing, engine + mounting & debris on indonisean islands. I recommend it be kept on the grounds that it is currently in the public eye.Kavs8 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This is not one of our criteria for inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extensive media coverage. More than 5,000 items on Google News. [7] --Edcolins (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - serious incident for the airline; serious incident for the Airbus A380; it's already developed into a huge deal. Plenty of reliable sources. Perhaps it would be worthwhile revisiting in six months or so, but for now I think it should be kept. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • We don't revisit articles in this manner without policy changes, and certainly not just because people had vague ideas that it was 'serious' at the time. See WP:NTEMP. This is the difference between news values and encyclopoedic value. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Caused damage to control lines to #1 engine & flaps, meaning the A380 landed with control of only 2 of 4 engines. An A380 landing with only 2 engines, faulty flaps and blowing 4 tires is surely notable. Not to mention the two injuries on the ground (but personally I don't think notability should be based on whether a piece of debris hits someone or misses them...). It seems pretty much random chance that debris went one way (into the wing) rather than another (into the hull) which could have had catastrophic consequences. Also a similar incident has occurred just now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11702365 (Qantas 747 operating QF6 returns to Singapore shortly after takeoff due to engine trouble) Bramley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Your statement that "An A380 landing with only 2 engines, faulty flaps and blowing 4 tires is surely notable." is simply argument by assertion. What you need to do is prove that it is historically notable, rather than just newsworthy, with some actual reference to external sources. This situation is not significant enough on it's own to meet our own aircraft incident essay, WP:AIRCRASH. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Consequences are unfolding because of this - the BEA is getting involved (I just added a link to the BEA page about this) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This events turns out to be more serious than first anticipated. There may be serious systematic faults to the engines. Nisselua (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • How's that? It was known immediately that this was a significant engine failure with exiting parts, that caused wing damage. What else are you referring to? And whether there may or may not be a systematic fault does not justify this article, because if it turns out this speculation is wrong, then we have an article on a one-off engine failure - a clear violatoin of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#NEWS. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This is going to be a no-consensus, isn't it? --NYKevin @768, i.e. 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably. The opposing parties haven't come to a happy medium yet. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment So another Qantas jet had an engine failure: [8]. Does that have its own article yet? Maybe such incidents could just get a line in the Qantas article and the article about the airplane (the latest was a Boeing 747-400). Maybe there should also be an article every time a tire blows on landing, if it is in the news. Or maybe we could just stick with WP:NOTNEWS and realize that this is an encyclopedia about things of timeless notability, rather than "This Week In The News." Edison (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've fixed your formatting. You missed an apostrophe. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Keep. There is no absolute demand that there need to be fatalities for an event to be notable. The incident meets the criteria at WP:EVENT. There are "lasting effects", in that it led to the grounding of the entire Qantas A380 fleet, and its investigation matters to A380 operators over the whole world. The coverage is significant, sustained, and international in scope, nor can the coverage be described as "routine" or "sensationalist". This is the first major event with the A380 and deserves coverage as such. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It is a temporary grounding of 5 aircraft. That is not a lasting effect by any stretch of the imagination. There are no lasting effects proven at all yet, and anyone speculating that there will be, is just playing at being a fortune teller. And any aircraft incident is always investigated and will always be taken notice of by operators of the same aircraft - this is not, and never will be, a sign of notability for air incidents. You assert that "This is the first major event with the A380 and deserves coverage as such." - then please provide proof that the first major incident of any new aircraft is given a whole article on Wikipedia, otherwise this is simply UNDUE weight. And no, 2 days news coverage is not sustained coverage at all for the purposes of EVENT, and in that guideline, you also completely ignored the requirements for evidence of depth and diversity of coverage. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major incidents involving airliners are always notable. This is also notable for being the first major incident involving an A380. Zerbey (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Alternative: Merge, into the A380 article - but I still feel this is notable enough to have its own article. --Zerbey (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This incident is the third time an engine of the Trent 900 family having trouble in three different airlines, not to mention one of the Trent 1000 in development blew up in nearly the same way as the one on QF32. This will have a long term ramifications and relevance for RR, Trent engines, airlines that use them, the effects on aviation industry, and in those articles that will discuss these matters.Life is short, but the years are long! (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Your rationale contradicts WP:CRYSTAL Socrates2008 (Talk) 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Highly notable event which goes far beyond the routine news to which WP:NOTNEWS refers. WP:AIRCRASH is irrelevant being an essay with no standing here. That leaves us with our editing policy which trumps these lesser considerations. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure. Editors will likely search high and low for what 'highly notable' means in our policies and guidelines, and they will find absolutely nothing. This rationale is nothing but pure argument by assertion and a reverse WP:VAGUEWAVE on NOT#NEWS. Our editing principles and deletion policies are pretty clear on that score - we shall freely ignore anybody who wants to keep material based solely on pure assertion and vague opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep. If this is indeed a design problem it would ground over half the 380s until either RR can fix the problem or EA build replacements. Either option could take months or even years. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. Janolder (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    The key word being "if". And even "if" it happens, then there is still the issue of whether having a separate article is giving UNDUE weight to an issue which is solely about RR engines, for which we already have plenty articles. MickMacNee (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    If engines would fly without airplanes attached, I would agree with you. Sarcasm aside, this is very much an A380 issue and with that an EADS issue. With engine supply cut in half, EADS would have a difficult time selling A380, probably keeping the whole program in the red for the life of the type. Janolder (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Like I said, "if". We don't keep articles based on such unproven speculation. Come back when it actually happens. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major incidents involving airliners are always notable. This is also notable for being the first major incident involving an A380. **Alternative: Merge, into the A380 article - but I still feel this is notable enough to have its own article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC) This argument was copy-pasted from this edit.
    • Dude, you cannot just copy and paste other people's reasons. Struck. MickMacNee (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • MMN, please do not refactor comments of others (even if copy-pasted); although I agree that this should be noted... L.tak (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Clearly invalid votes like coypying and pasting someone elses rationale can be struck. This is perfectly normal Afd practice as far as I know. Notes are for debatable things like SPAs/socks. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I am not too familiar with AfDs and just reacted on the normal convention not to refactor others' comments. Could you provide me with the ground and policy why a copied rationale would be invalid (It also confuses me: in some way validity is not even that relevant as AfDs are not votes, so why would it be a policy?)? L.tak (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
            • The basic principle here is that you are required to put your own argument in your own words, to show you understand and comprehend both the issues and the process. It hardly takes any competency to copy and past someone else's rationale does it? MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Whether it hardly takes competency to copy does not mean it can not be turned around: a person can be competent and at the same time find a comment and copy it because he agrees with it (although we both agree that shouldn't be done). I agree this is a deletion-discussion here, but I don't think that an editor has to actively establish competency in every edit he makes by putting things in his own words (he has to be competent and act competent, but doesn't need to prove explicitly with every edit). As a second point: I am still looking for your grounds to qualify a vote as clearly invalid and would like to see a rationale for that. L.tak (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep very noteworthy incident of the year 2010 --borism —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
  • Keep Wow yet another huge AfD debate about a plane crash, I am choosing to keep aqs it is notable, has the coverage, and how often do you hear about a plane breaking up in midair and landing safe with no deaths to anyone on board?. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, as before to someone else above who gave a similar plea, is this a rhetorical question or do you actualy know? MickMacNee (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Comment enough WP:NOTNEWS, WP:AIRCRASH and WP:WHATEVER else... Instead of arguing guidelines, and i've found theres way too many guidelines, they waste too much peoples time, theyre badly written and many contradict one other and even themselves anyway. Simply apply Common Sense instead. Its not logical to place this in another article.
- 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)
"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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Keep That is why Wikipedia is called a Evolutive encyclopedia. The fact of having it here from the start will give us an evolution aspect of the incident. Capbat (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing major has happened as a result of the incident: no fatalities, grounding (presumably temporary) of a small number of airframes. Short lived effect on involved companies share price. Certainly nothing that couldn't be contained as the briefest of paragraphs within related articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: The grounding of the fleet type and the concerns of the A380 are the raison d'etre to keep this article. Qantas, the French BEA, and other parties are already involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • None of which has ever counted as grounds for automatic inclusion for an entire aircrash article. You need to justify why it is the raison d'etre for this article, not simply restate that it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Because the in-depth, ongoing media attention and the concerns from safety agencies are points which add notability. Something that gets a blip on page 2 and disappears from notice is a recent event that is not worthy of covering. When stock prices fall, when the airplane manufacturer and the aviation agency of the country of manufacture (BEA) get involved and when event coverage is ongoing, then the event is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        • WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Once again, none of that has ever counted as automatic notability for aircrashes. For example, if you think aviation agencies or manufacturers getting involved means it's historically notable, either now or for past accidents, you are totally and utterly wrong, and are frankly just showing you don't know anything about aviation accidents at all. And you can already see from the article what an utter joke it is to claim that the share price affect is notable, it's perfectly predictable transient news nonsense, not worthy of an encyclopoedia at all. RR have bet their house on this engine, it's not rocket science to think what happens to their share price if one is in an accident. MickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Why do so many contributors to this discussion feel that any malfunction involving Qantas is of earthshaking permanent importance and must be immortalized in an encyclopedia? If similar "close calls" happened to any other airlines, they would be justly regarded as trivial and routine, and maybe get a passing mention in an article about the airline. Articles about "X Airline Flight #" usually are restricted to crashes. Edison (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: Because the media says it's important, because Airbus says it's important, because the ATSB says it's important, because the French BEA says it's important... - Whether a "close call" gets attention depends on how much scrutiny it's getting. This one's getting a lot of scrutnity.
    • Also, in the aviation industry the agencies analyze close calls so that an actual accident doesn't happen because people failed to act up on a close call.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • Keep; easily meets GNG, and the wide-ranging effects of the incident are sufficient to pass NOTNEWS and EVENT. C628 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Prove it, don't assert it. MickMacNee (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Or, C628, you can say "I support the rationale of XXX user" and leave it at that. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:GNG-"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"--passes this with flying colors, just look at the references section. It therefore has to be determined whether or not it passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. To determine that, one has to look at the effects of the incident. NOTNEWS says that "...routine news reporting...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I would submit that this is not routine, due to the unusual nature of the incident and the extensive repercussions. Next, you have EVENT, which has a series of requirements. First is "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Right now, it's impossible to look at lasting without violating WP:CRYSTAL, but I would say it's reasonable to expect changes in engine design or Qantas maintainence as a result of this incident--it's the nature of these things to provoke changes. Next, you have "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." Two reactions satisfy this--the impact on the stock of the companies involved and the grounding of A380s by multiple airlines in different parts of the world. Third is "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." Essentially the same as GNG. Next is duration of coverage. You have the initial flurry of news reports now, but there will also be further coverage of the incident as the investigation(s) continue. Lastly, there's diversity of sources. There are certainly a great deal of similar news reports, but there are also articles from industry sources, which are completely different, as well as press releases from the companies involved, again separate from other sources.
      • -- C628 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
        • "passes this with flying colors" - sure, we believe you. "I would submit that this is not routine, due to the unusual nature of the incident" - you can submit it, but you have not proved it, in any way at all. "I would say it's reasonable to expect changes in engine design or Qantas maintainence as a result of this incident" - I would say this is complete fortune telling garbage. "the impact on the stock of the companies involved and the grounding of A380s by multiple airlines in different parts of the world" - two purely temporary effects, totally irrelevant to historical notability. "Essentially the same as GNG" - no, not actually, if you read the guideline. "there will also be further coverage of the incident as the investigation(s) continue" - you've been told about a million times by a million different people that this is completely irrelevant, why you keep ignoring all these people is beyond me, but you do. "there's diversity of sources...there are also articles from industry sources.... as well as press releases from the companies involved" - these are not diverse sources or even independent, this is complete rubbish frankly, although Im pretty sure you've been told that before by many people as well. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the third engine failure in 3 months (two of them uncontained which is apparently quite unusual) for a relatively small airline. Isn't that rather a lot or is it just that there was a high profile A380 one which draws attention to the other two? 84.9.36.183 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a high profile engine failure because of the specific circumstances surrounding this one. This prompted press releases from Rolls Royce, ATSB, the BEA, and the EASA. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment If this argument is to be balanced, one should check whether any particular users are going through, arguing against every single dubious Keep, while systematically ignoring all of the dubious Delete arguments! (it is also worth checking whether this is happening in the opposite direction). I'm sure the Wikipedia administrators overseeing this AfD debate would notice if any particular systematic bias (such as only attempting to nullify one side of the argument, due to having an agenda for / against deletion, and would themselves systematically disregard those comments). I myself don't have time to read through the article and see if this has occured, but I think it might be. Buckethed (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • Delete I won't rehash the debate above about whether this article meets WP:AIRCRASH guidelines or not, as that's rather beside the point. This incident involved a somewhat unusual occurrence (uncontained failure of an engine on a jetliner) and a relatively new aircraft. But so what? Nobody died, nobody was seriously injured, and the plane made a safe emergency landing. We've no idea as yet why the engine failed, and hence no idea whether this is a more widespread problem or the result of a random glitch either during or after manufacture of that particular engine. And, while the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 is the engine that powers 52% or so of the Airbus A380 aircraft now operating, that's only 12 aircraft using the engine worldwide. Once we know more about what transpired, and why, then an argument could be made about whether this is a notable occurrence or not. Until we know, however, we're speculating about whether this is a notable incident or not.

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

    • Keep VERY STRONG KEEP This article is NOT about a Quantas flight -even if the name suggests so- but about a failure in a new type of engine. The Quantas part of it is only the save landing of the damaged plane that is noteworthy and that is a news topic. The engine failure on the other hand seems to be a serious problem that has to be followed up as more information will become available. In this stage it is only speculative to say much more about it than that the outcome of the investigation may become of historic significance. Thus Keep the article even if renamed or re-edited. Ed Boxwood 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC) — Ed Boxwood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: the above user has been flagged as a Single-purpose account (not by me, i dont know how its done anyway). There have been numerous anonymous users making updates to Quuantas and other articles. However the Qantas article has become semi protected. I was thinking it might be possible that this user or other may now just have registered so they can still contribute to such pages. If so, id suggest they find a way to bring across their edit history etc and rebut the presumtion that they are a SPA. I'd also like to suggest that other 'IP address' editors (anonymous users) that its better to get a username if they want to make contributions. --Advanstra (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You can click on the "contribs" link and see for yourself. --NYKevin @686, i.e. 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - significant event that has received a considerable amount of international coverage over a sustained period of time, and at least appears likely to have lasting consequences for Airbus and Rolls-Royce. It's arguable that the notability rests in the problems with the Rolls-Royce engines rather than this specific flight; if that turns out to be the case, this could be renamed to Airbus A380 engine incidents or something similar and rewritten appropriately. But either way, we should have some kind of article on the topic. As for WP:AIRCRASH, I note that those guidelines are currently 'in beta', and aren't fixed policy; if they forbid us from having an article on this subject, then perhaps it's the guidelines that should be changed. Robofish (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, I'd like to stress that last point further: if this AFD is closed as 'keep', and WP:AIRCRASH says it should have been closed as 'delete', then WP:AIRCRASH should be changed as it is clearly out of line with community consensus. Robofish (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    If you believe that the basis of this material is Airbus A380 engine incidents, then surprise surprise, that is what the AIRCRASH essay actually supports, beta or no beta. That is because it interprets NOT#NEWS in terms of what is and is not usually considered historically notable in Aviation. Even in 6 months time, let alone 6 years, most of the content of the current article is going to look like completely recentist junk, stupidly out of date, and a pretty obvious basic violation of NPOV through UNDUE focus on news coverage. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • Strong Keep Extremely notable incident, significant failure on worlds biggest aircraft. As far as I can see it also meets WP:AIRCRASH per A4 and A5. If an article about a steward having a hissy fit deserves inclusion, this certainly does. GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Other Aircraft grounded by Singapore airlines and directive issued I feel now tips this beyond doubt. GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Extremely notable incident" - WP:VAGUEWAVE
    "significant failure on worlds biggest aircraft." - So? Please show how this means it merits it's own article, either through some similar precedent, or some analysis of external sources
    "As far as I can see it also meets WP:AIRCRASH per A4 and A5." - the essay is quite clear, meeting only A-criteria does not indicate a separate article is warranted
    "If an article about a steward having a hissy fit deserves inclusion, this certainly does." - completely irrelevent Other Crap argument. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. First off, this has a lot of sourcing behind it, and for me goes well beyond the routine coverage mentioned in WP:NOTNEWS. The relevant guideline, then, is WP:EVENT, which basically requires significant widespread coverage and lasting impact. The sources already in the article come from multiple countries and offer a good level of depth which should be sufficient for that portion, so impact is the only possible stumbling block. What we have is the grounding of two fleets of A380s (one still ongoing), discovery of faults in the type's engine design and modifications as a result, and serious shifts in stock market position of at least two involved companies. Whether that is enough to meet the guideline is open to interpretation, but I reckon it is. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    It's a temporary grounding and a temporary share price effect. When have these newsy type effects ever led to an article ever? This won't be relevant at all in ten or twenty years. And where have you got the idea that a design flaw has even been found yet to even claim that is a proven effect? What modifications have been made exactly? The fact that the engine failed and has been replaced, does not constitute a proven design flaw or a modification. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Alzarian16 - Your comments amply demonstrate the problems we are facing here. They are so inaccurate as to almost demonstrate slander. There are many possible interpretations of events here, and many barrows being pushed. The slant of articles reflects the serious leans on some of those barrows. This is definitely one of those occasions when only time will tell us if there is any real significance to this event, apart from the media fuss. My view is that what is notable is not what happened on that flight, but the media fuss about what happened on that flight. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    I've struck the contentious bit of my comment. I was basing it on this, but looking again I probably read too much into the source and drew conclusions that I shouldn't have, for which I apologise. I still think the event is notable, but the case is perhaps more borderline than I'd considered. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Alzarian16's arguments, among others. Quenn (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Which ones? Those he has now struck out? (Because editors can quite ethically change their own posts, it would be safer if you expressed your own opinion.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    If you look at my time date stamp, you'll see I made it after his edits. Quenn (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep – Incidents involving the Airbus A380 are very rare, and Qantas Flight 32 is one of those incidents. I see no reason to delete the article. On top of that, I can add that the article already has sufficient amount of content and is well written, at least for now. HeyMid (contributions) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Simple rarity of the incident is not a reason to keep, and neither is the quality (which is debatable) or size of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    If the media places an importance on the rarity, then Wikipedia shall place that importance. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    The Airbus A380 is a relatively new aircraft, compared to others currently in service. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Highly notable. True, it is currently news, but so too is the winner of a Presidential election. If this article should be deleted on the grounds that it is news we should also say Wikipedia shouldn't report on the outcome of a Presidential election. Dolphin (t) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - If, as some have suggested, the notability of this article is the fact that the incident involved a new engine and a new airliner, then surely this information belongs on the Airbus A380 and/or Rolls-Royce Trent 900 pages? If people are arguing that this incident is significant because it affects the A380/Trent 900, that would seem to be an argument for moving the info there and getting rid of this page. Warmfuzzygrrl | Talk 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Agreed. The contents of this article can be moved to the pages mentioned. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I could close this right now as a no consensus, there is absolutely no way that this will end up as a consensus delete. But I'm going to give a shout for keep. This event isn't too recent, the AFD nomination was, sure WP:CRYSTAL and all, but if the crystal is going materialise in the next several days - just do the pragmatic thing and let the thing develop. As it happens, it turns out this is a notable incident, and could highlight a fault inherent with all Trent 900 engines. Whether or not it actually does is not that relevant, as the possibility is notable itself given the reaction. - hahnchen 00:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    Comment - Again, that's yet another comment that says "Can't really tell if this event should really be notable, but the fuss being made about it is." That says it probably doesn't belong under the current title. Maybe it should be "Media fuss made over Qantas Flight 32". HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    I really can't see how this can be written off as "media fuss" (and I sure hope no-one's still trying to call this an everyday event). How many other examples are you aware of of fractured turbines leading to an uncontained engine failure (itself leading to damage to the aircraft wing and at least some level of control of the #1 engine with it being unable to be shut down)? This incident has led to a further three engines being found with problems, at least two of which are being taken out of service, with the whole Qantas A380 fleet remaining grounded. The latest update from Qantas as at 8:45pm AEDT on 8 November was that the fleet would remain grounded for at least another 72 hours [10] which would mean it would have lasted at least a week. Having six high capacity aircraft grounded for a week is a big deal for an airline and is a milestone event, for Qantas, the Airbus A380 and the Trent 900. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    You don't see Wiki creating articles for every airline incident by which the aircraft safely makes an emergency landing. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    Answered below. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    No, not every one, but there are some - US Airways Flight 1549, British Airways Flight 9, China Airlines Flight 6 to name a few. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    Qantas Flight 30 is another classic example. Landing safely does not automatically indicate a lack of notability. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • MUST NOT BE DELETED For sure corporates and government agents will try to cover up the real culprits if a huge A380 disaster happens. This is just the beginning. All the critical details, especially the people involved (who could well disappear in mysterious circumstances) need to be kept on front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article can be briefly mentioned in both the Qantas and Airbus A380 articles. Notability for airline incidents usually include hull loss, passenger deaths, etc. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    Comment: Not every emergency landing leads to engine parts falling and injuring two people, or the engine maker's stock price falling down, or foreign accident investigation agencies sending delegates to investigate... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    Comment: That information can still be briefly mentioned without the need of a separate articles. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    Comment: No, it needs its own article. It cannot be "briefly" mentioned anymore. Not now, not with the stock prices going down, or the brouhaha about the engines being replaced on several different airlines. Not with the French BEA getting involved with an incident on an Australian airliner over Indonesia. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Singapore Airlines has now grounded 3 A380s, canceling flights out of Sydney and Melbourne today. They will be ferried to Singapore to have engines replaced: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/singapore-crew-refuses-to-fly-a380-after-oil-found/story-e6freuy9-1225950885033 Bramley (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Over a week of continuous media coverage. Both Qantas and Singapore replacing all Trent 900 engines. An air worthiness directive issued. Big ramifications for the future of both Rolls Royce and Airbus. Why is there still argument over this? 118.142.88.250 (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • Delete. The title's wrong. There's a QF32 flight several times a week and there's no mention of the other QF32 flights, most of which arrive safely. This is a minor incident related to the A380 and should be on the A380 page or a "A380 Incidents" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.91.163 (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
WP:SOFIXIT then! Needing improvement is never a reason to delete an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
The problem is that then nobody will ever find this article (Me, for sure not). Elmao (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • Delete and move to wikinews. Just searched for "A380 engine" and "Qantas A380" on wikinews and there's NOTHING there relating to this incident!!! Surely surely surely the eager contributors to this page have got the wrong wiki. Until such time as this NEWS article runs its course on wikinews, which is where it should be, only then, at some later date, when conclusions have been established, will it become ENCYCLOPEDIC and worthy for inclusion in wikipedia. Everyone can quote WP:DADA but surely common sense should prevail? It's news. 85.210.85.217 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
  • Delete - Trivial, WP:NOTNEWS. This is not what an encyclopedia is for, to immortalize forever an incident where a piece fell off a plane. No crash, no fatailities. The aircraft was grounded for inspection afterwards? Stop the presses! Facepalm Facepalm Tarc (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - In aviation there are many events that are not trivial even though nobody died, even though the plane wasn't structurally damaged - Like the Gimli Glider. Long story short, if the press says that it shall be immortalized forever, we immortalize it forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs)
      • And this is not one of them. If you want to be a journalist, then go write for a newspaper. Not an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Tarc, when an incident that we know is going to be notable happens, we don't wait until the incident had long passed and authorities had released the final report. We use the information that we know already to predict "Yes, this is going to be notable" and we start the article now. And within a week enough information supporting the notability will come in, and more information will come in the longer we wait.
        • And we use the media as a guide to determine what articles are notable and what articles are not notable. We do not try to second-guess what importance the media places on something. Wikipedia is not a journalism piece, but Wikipedia uses journalism as a guide to place importance on things.
        • WhisperToMe (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • What on earth are you talking about? Of course we "second guess" what the media thinks is important; that is the crux of WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP1E for that matter. We decided if just being reliably sourced is insufficient grounds to justify a Wikipedia article or not. That is what we as editors do, every day. Otherwise every two-bit news-of-the-day piece of tripe would be here. Tarc (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
            • WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are our processes of determining what the media considers to be important. If a story makes headlines one day, but drops out of sight, and/or the story is not widely reported, then "the media" does not consider it to be important, therefore we don't consider it to be important. If multiple outlets from various countries report on it and the story is reported on, over and over again, for weeks and/or months, and or sources indicate a notable impact, then the media considers it to be important and we do too. When dealing with a new incident, one uses the information that is apparent now to determine "this will be reported on for weeks and/or months at least." Therefore the subject is important to Wikipedia
            • WP:BLP1E does not interfere with the thesis statement that "What the media considers important, Wikipedia does too." WP:BLP1E says "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" -- Persistent coverage = media considers the event to be important that the coverage must be persistent, yes?
            • In summary, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E support the notion that Wikipedia considers important what the media considers important
            • WhisperToMe (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - yes, a malfunction with a plane made the news. No, it does not need its own article. This could easily be contained by a couple sentences in the article on the Airbus A380, especially given the context of the entire story revolves around the safety of the engines, not anything to do with this flight itself. Resolute 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - Now it does need its own article, as the engine controversy continued to get coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - So let's have a title that refers to the engines, not a title that refers to an ambiguous flight number and gives Qantas bashers and racists a platform. To those saying that wasn't their motive here, that's wonderful, and I'm sure they're telling the truth. but Australian media coverage, which this article can reflect and has already reflected because of its title, has clearly included union driven complaints about the outsourcing of maintenance, and nationalistic driven complaints about that work being done by foreigners. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment: After the AFD reaches "No Consensus" or "Keep," bring up the title with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force WhisperToMe (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, wouldn't it be better to take it up on the article's talk page? That's were renaming discussion are generally held. - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, a formal talk page discussion on renaming would go on the article talk page, but the WikiProject should be notified. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Has received plenty of coverage, and passes the NOTNEWS test because it has also prompted the investigation of a larger issue involving A380s and their engines. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
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://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Articles_for_deletion/Qantas_Flight_32&oldid=6351242"