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. Without prejudice against recreation if something happens to make this incedent retrospectively encyclopedia-worthy. Flowerparty^☀ 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Airlines Flight 2040[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and not WP:NEWS. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, pretty minor. WP:AIRCRASH does allow for unusual circumstances, but my £0.02 is that some smouldering towels doesn't really cut it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a newsworthy event at the time, there is no hint of lasting encyclopedic notability. Reso lute 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor incident that was (barely) newsworthy, but not notable. Fails WP:AIRCRASH Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AIRCRASH :-

General Criteria - It involves unusual circumstances (Cabin crew started fire deliberately) The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions. (The aviation professional was dismissed for his actions)

Air Carrier Criteria - It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. (Compass Air is a scheduled or charter air carrier) It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target. This could be seen as a being on a par with terrorist activities. It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline or aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe it merits a sentence at Compass Airlines, maybe it doesn't. It doesn't merit it's own article though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is somewhat unusual, with a flight attendant deliberately setting fire to paper towels in the bathroom to set off smoke detectors and force an emergency landing, but it's not worthy of its own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now A flight attendant allegedly starting a fire in a commercial airline flight is not the average news story about some minor mishap on a flight, such a "plane drops and passengers shaken up" or "drunk removed from plane." It meets two of the criteria in the essay WP:AIRCRASH in "It involves unusual circumstances" and "The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions." Fire on an airliner could easily have resulted in the crash of the plane. This event received coverage in May and July 2008[1], and the trial is scheduled for later this year. After the trial we will have the full picture of how notable the event turns out to be. One factor in the event is the practice of letting aircrews bypass security checks, which might have detected the lighter he allegedly took on board. If it is deleted without prejudice it could be re-created later if it gets more coverage and affects security rules. The Shoe bomber failed to detonate the bomb in his shoe, and the result was all passengers having to shuffle through security in their socks or bare feet [2]. Edison (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment keeping this now because it might be notable in the future violates WP:CRYSTAL, a deletion without prejudice would not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No need to keep because it might be notable in the future. It already is notable. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Note that my Keep argument said it had adequate notability now, as well as noting that the trial has not yet taken place, so it was not a stale matter left in the past. Edison (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I've assessed this article against my draft proposal for a replacement to the current WP:AIRCRASH. As the proposal stands at the moment, this article gets a score of 1 (only very occasionally notable) with a possibility of getting another one when the outcome of the investigation is known; 2 points still doesn't make it notable enough for its own article in most cases. Comments on the proposed criteria would be great on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment The draft proposal is exactly that, a draft. It has no bearing on this discussion. The article currently meets four (and maybe meets five) criteria of WP:AIRCRASH which has been established for a long time. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until all flight attendants have to be searched for lighters, this has had no impact outside of the individuals involved. Note: had the plane crashed, it may have been notable, but I think that all aboard are quite glad that they weren't involved in that sort of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not an encyclopedic event, another signal that WP:AIRCRASH needs to be read narrowly if used for guidance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident of arson. Notability is determined by reference to independent sources, not by voting here. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.