Talk:China Airlines Flight 120

message: BillCJ, can you outline why you think this is not notable?  Aircraft explosively bursting into flame and burned to a crisp seconds after emergency evacuation is not an everyday occurrence, and the reason this happened will be debated for a long time to come. For comparison, see Air France Flight 358, a 20K article on an airplane that overran the runway with nobody killed. (And an incident with 717k Google hits, mind you.) Jpatokal 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unusual and notable are not the same thing. I've asked for comments from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, and I simply want to let that run its course. However, the next time the tag is removed, I'm filing an AFD, which you aren't allowed to remove. - BillCJ 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, please do not make threats like that. Clearly Jpatokal is not the only person that thinks this is notable. You can file an AFD if you like, but I am sure it will fail. Just leave the article to grow - I'm put a stub tag on it to encourage expansion. John Smith's 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: John, I had restored the "notability" tag twice! I was out of options per 3RR, and felt that was the only course of action. Remember, notability has to be proven, not the other way around. I have seen any possitive proof that is IS notable as yet. It may come, but it may not. - BillCJ 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, there is no independent "this is notable" sticker someone can put on an article - it is always a matter of opinion. However I note that no one has agreed with you so far on WikiProject Aviation. If you really want to list for deletion, go ahead. But really I think you're barking up the wrong tree. John Smith's 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * We have reliable sources from CNN and BBC. It sounds awfully familiar to Air Canada Flight 797 less somebody died. Nobody died doesn't mean it's not notable. - Mailer Diablo. 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This incident occupied the top page of local (Japanese) and Taiwanese newspaper for two days, maybe it's not a big news from an English point of view, but it certainly caught notices of many Chinese and Japanese speaking population and shouldn't be considered "not notable enough".--SElefant 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Planes aren't destroyed by fire minutes after a full evacuation very often. I agree the incident is notable. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Even Al Jazeera is covering it, so that cements the notability. (^_-) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you undid my closure of this discussion, I'd like to know exactly how this event doesn't satisfy (in spades) WP:N? This event has received significant coverage in the world news media, the sources cited are very reliable, these reliable sources are secondary sources not related in any way to the airline (which makes them independent). That about covers it for WP:N. If you still don't this this event is notable, please explain exactly how it isn't notable. The rest of us have already satisfied the reguirements for notability several times over, and the link I provided above to the Google News search can provide hundreds more reliable, independent secondary sources giving significant coverage to this event. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to be unconvinced by the arguments of others here - that the press ocverage alone makes it notable. While WP:N doesn't differentiate, I think it should be nescescary for the press to report something that makes it notable if they are the only real sources, more or less (I say more or less because there is a little coverage from the NTSB, although that doesn't automaticaly create notability either, IMO, NTSB covers lots of stufff). However, the article now talks about the wide-ranging implications this had for the 737 fleets of two different countries, with mandatory inspections all round. This also satisfies current draft notability guidlines. Hence, I reverted because although, as I tried to cram into the limited edit summary space, I believe I can now establish notability, it has not been established here, and revolves around a point many people may not stop to consider. Now that this reasoning has been set out here, though, it may be possible to close down again (although I would rarely, if ever, close a talk page discusion except for archiving purposes, I won't revert, just quietly disagree with my computer screen, then move on to something else ;-). If you got this far, thank you for reading my ramble that was originaly going to be a rather short reply. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 11:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the main issue then: you disagree with the current notability guidelines (which have been satisfied in this case). If that's the case, then you need to take your concerns there rather than bringing them up here. All that needs to be done here is to determine whether the guidelines as they currently exist have been satisfied. They have. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently (or, at least, there was recently) much discusion on how to interpret them, pointing out, in particular, that using news services as sources could potentialy make almost anything notable. The policy seems to be in much turmoil on that issue, so, while it still stands in it's well-known version, that is currently subject to change anytime (probably not that quickly, but I've not been following it particularly closely). Therefore, to prove notability, something more was needed - many house fires, road traffic accidents etc etc get multiple, independant, non-trivial news sources covering them. No-one pretends that makes them notable. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they don't get multiple major international news organizations covering them. You don't see AP/Reuters/etc. wire reports on traffic accidents or house fires unless there is something spectacular or of interest to a broader crowd than the local populace. In this case, having an international air carrier's plane burst into flame and explode while just sitting on the tarmac at the terminal is certainly newsworthy around the world. I doubt there's a major news agency anywhere (and very few, if any minor news agencies) that didn't cover this. When everyone in the world is covering it, it's notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no problem proving notability. When every major (and most minor) news agencies in the world are covering it (I even saw it on my local news last night), it's definitely notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think of is that Air France Flight 358 is not notable enough.... (don't getme wrong.. i am from Toronto area)., SYSS Mouse 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Air France Flight 358 have to do with anything here? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's another example of a plane burning on landing, with no-one killed. AnonMoos 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't think of another example land and burn quite like this though, usually there is some indication of fire (smell, smoke) but not in this case. (Air France Flight 358 overran the runway and crashed, in that case you kinda expect a fire and casualties). The others I am thinking of were also not being brought to the gate, actually if the fire had occured a few minutes later the terminal may have burned. Anynobody 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: According to Aviation Safety  the fire started near engine no. 1. Also, footage on the television showed the passengers evacuating from the right side of the plane, while smoke was emanating from the left side. Q43 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information in above reference has changed considerably and now talks of engine no. 2. Q43 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference 12 has more. Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point Of Origin Of Fire 

message: I found a source that this was not the first fire for a 737-800 aircraft  --75.154.68.230 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not the first fire

message: Thai Airways International 737 HS-TDC Anynobody 08:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This looks familiar

message: Hey, I thought that people might be interested to know that an image of the damaged tank, with the bolt still impaled, was released to the media at the time. An article with it is here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of damaged tank 

message: An anonymous editor has added a link to Thai Airways flight 358 as a similar accident. I reverted, as I felt that the Thai Airways accident has nothing to do with this article. The anon reverted my removal, and I'm bringing this to the talk page to get consensus. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Thai Airways flight 358 article was a hoax. The article has been deleted and the annonymous editor's IP address has been banned. Rsduhamel (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to related articles

message: the Air Crash Investigation episode mentioned, Boeing has reworked the fix of that problem again, after the incident with China Airlines 120.
Why isn't it menstionedsd in the article?
It is an important information. --95.223.135.1 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing's new fix 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on China Airlines Flight 120. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GBXrONWe?url=http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/B18616.pdf to http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/B18616.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67ICtdHNl?url=http://www.china-airlines.com/en/newsen/newsen000417.htm to http://www.china-airlines.com/en/newsen/newsen000417.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified