Talk:Whyalla Airlines Flight 904

Article focus and Notability
In my opinion it is not so much the accident itself, but the accident investigation that is notable. Not much has been written about the accident after the flurry of news reports, but plenty has been written about the investigation. Do the words written about the investigation confer notability on the accident? I realise that one can't be discussed without mentioning the other, but perhaps a rename is in order. YSSYguy (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support renaming the article, however I feel that the accident itself is notable in accordance with WP:AIRCRASH due to the safety implications and the amount of media coverage received at the time. I feel the current name fits with conventions for such an incident, but I understand the point you make. Perhaps the investigation would be better discussed as part of a (not yet existing) article about aircraft accident investigation in Australia? There have been a fair few incidents where the regulator/investigator's actions have been quite controversial - The Seaview Air Crash (1994?) and 2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching immediately come to mind. Dfadden (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)