Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QantasLink Flight 1623

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

QantasLink Flight 1623

QantasLink Flight 1623 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Proposed deletion that was contested without a reason given. The PROD rationale was: Coverage of this seems to amount to "something could have happened, but nothing really did". Does not meet WP:EVENT Sjrct (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - this event does not meet inclusion criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete This article just screams of WP:RECENTISM. It was a flight that was diverted due to plane trouble. No one hurt, and honestly a big deal over nothing. Had this event occurred prior to the advent of immediate news of every little thing, this would be a 1-2 minute blurb on the news and forgotten. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Relatively minor event that happens frequently. See WP:NOTNEWS. MB 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

*Delete - not at all notable, this sort of thing is literally an everyday occurrence in aviation - aircraft develops [insert problem type here], aircraft lands, no problem. Media in Australia tend to get hysterical about anything at all involving the airline of the flying kangaroo; having said that, I hadn't even heard about this. YSSYguy (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under Category G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1623. YSSYguy (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

YSSY: if you want G4 you should tag the article with {{Db-g4}}. Has an article with this title been created before??--Petebutt (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added the speedy delete template, hopefully an admin can sort out the AfD, which is essentially redundant--Petebutt (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to recreations after speedy deletions; the previous AFD was closed on that basis rather than on the merits of a discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There isn't a Speedy Deletion criterion that would apply to any first iteration of an article of this nature, so surely the previous deletion had to have been as a result of the discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually CSD A7 would apply, that being an non-notable event {{db-event}} being the exact tag to be used. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Ignore this, I misinterpreted it. The original article was deleted through A7 though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As A7 was misapplied to the first iteration article - it being not an organized event - it is clearly inappropriate to G4 Speedy this version, so I am again arguing for deletion based on lack of Notability as per my struck-out comments above. YSSYguy (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:GNG--Petebutt (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - completely non-notable aviation incident. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2016 (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.