Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching


 * 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 Keep Wily D  08:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable aviation incident WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's lots of relevant contemporary commentary from news sources at a search for "careflight ditching -wikipedia". Perhaps the article should be renamed to match that, rather than (or in addition to) Pel-Air. Besides, I can't see any rationale or argument behind the "not notable" assertion. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This Air Services Australia bulletin dated 21 June 2012 on "Minimum and Emergency Fuel" appears to be a consequence of this flight; it's scheduled to be incorporated into the relevant standards on 23 August 2012. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - key word in the above is "contemporary commentary" - no WP:PERSISTENCE. Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:AIRCRASH. Not a scheduled flight, no fatalities, no changes in procedures. Regrettable but non-notable incident. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This accident led to a major review of fuel planning requirements. That review is not yet complete but it seems inevitable that notability of this accident will ultimately be demonstrated by The accident resulted in a significant change to ... national ... regulations. I have given a more detailed explanation on the Aviation Project Talk page – see my  diff.  Dolphin  ( t ) 06:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then once the article achieves notability it can be recreated. As of now though, it does not meet the notability standards (be they policy, guideline, essay, or napkinwaffe) and keeping the article because "it will" ignores that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - (Australian) regulatory changes per Dolphin51, total hull loss per WP:AIRCRASH, plus the rareness of a successful ditching of a jet aircraft. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 09:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There have yet to be any regulatory changes. There may be in the future, but it's not notable now. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Dolphin51 explained this accident has started the ball rolling on significant changes in the regulations and so complies with WP:AIRCRASH, however this needs to be added to the article text! - Ahunt (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the official report is imminant... Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 10:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the ball that is rolling a WP:CRYSTAL one? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual for aircrash articles to be created before the official report is published. What's the rush?  Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what is the rush to delete? It's three years since the event happened, and there's no final official report. If the final report says "no big deal, continue as usual", then we have hull loss of a minor aircraft (admittedly, and dramatically, in the middle of very sparsely populated ocean). There's no hurry to delete now, and to have to reconstruct the article from scratch if were to turn out that the official report is strongly worded would be a waste of Wikipedia editors time. WP:BROKE Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable, fuel planning relevant to the flight is one of the subjects being examined but I dont see any sign of a major review and if it was that important we would still not be waiting 2+ years later. At the time they said the investigation would be a few months and anything critical to safety will be brought to the attention of relevant authorities, after 2 and half years nothing has been found. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This crash has attracted lots of commentary in the Australian aviation press (which is largely still limited to hardcopy magazines, and so won't show in Google searches), as well as follow-up articles on the pilot involved. There's been quite a bit of commentary about whether the pilot was a hero or negligent (or both) and whether regulatory failures contributed to the crash. Australian Aviation's rather limited website has the following post-crash stories: CASA to audit Rex and Pel-Air, Weather, fuel planning focus for Norfolk investigation, Ditching pilot’s licence suspended? and I'm pretty sure that I've read detailed stories on this accident in the magazine itself. Crikey's aviation correspondent/blogger has also written about this accident in Crikey and covered it extensively on his blog:, , , , , , ,  (while these blog posts aren't useful for establishing notability, they are a taster of the kind of coverage this has received in the Australian aviation press). Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This debate has also been covered in the general media - for instance: (about 4 months after the crash). Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2012 (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.