Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Concorde pilots

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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Concorde pilots[edit]

This is just a list without any references. I believe it fails on WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT#DIR. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with existing article about the Concorde, and leave it at that. None of these people merits their own individual listing, as the red-links show. These persons learned to fly a supersonic aircraft, but that doesn't make them astronauts. Mandsford 11:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did consider putting it in for a merge but it's just a non-notable list and there wouldn't be any encyclopeadic value in it. If there are notable pilots in the list (i.e. first pilot to fly, last pilot to fly, etc.) then they should be included in relevant sections of the article (which seems has already been done). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Concorde talk page. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - A lot of the blue links only point to disambiguation pages OR pages of people under the same name. Some of the links, yeah, should be transferred - Maybe 'notable concorde pilots', ie the first woman concorde pilot, and such. Reedy Boy 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: The article provides information not readily found in other sources. If the list is not referenced then it should be tagged in that way, not summarily deleted after some effort had been put into its creation. BTW, I believe that any editor can remove an AfD tag at any time, FWIW Bzuk 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - The amount of Red links demonstrate a lack of notability. It would be a shame to lose the list - however I don't believe it is encylopedic. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel that a list of notable pilots to fly concorde could be included in the main Concorde Article -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - I would list notable Concorde Pilots (probably those that have a WP article) in the main Concorde Article. I would then redirect List of Concorde pilots to Concorde. This would enable the full list to be stored in the page history of List of Concorde pilots if it is needed at a later date. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary and unencyclopedic list. It implies that flying the Concorde is sufficient grounds for notability, which, frankly, I disagree with. Eusebeus 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, having flown the Concorde is not grounds for notability, even if it were verified. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly I don't see the need for this list, which is mostly nn individuals, so I say the only place it can be put is in the Concorde article so Merge.JForget 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Concorde. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no merge. Airline pilots are not notable, with very few exceptions. This is just a collection of redlinks; nearly all of the bluelinks are for other people with the same name, or disambiguation pages. Most of those few pilots who have articles should be deleted as well. -R. fiend 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the suggestion of a merger is only to include those of note (e.g. Test Pilot, First Woman etc.. (i.e. those that have a well written WP article). -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then people should state that more clearly. I still maintain that most of those pilot articles are serious deletion candidates themselves, though I haven't examined them all carefully. I guess being the first woman is somewhat notable, but I don't buy that the first woman [whatever] is notable in and of itself. Is the first female 727 pilot worthy of an article? The first female taxi driver in Columbus, Ohio? Yeah, the first female concorde pilot beats those, but I'm not sure she's still notable enough for a wikipedia article. I'd have to take a closer look. -R. fiend 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be biased as the originator of this list – but here goes:

A few points in its favour:

I don’t agree that this list is comparable to ‘lesser’ lists (“the first female taxi driver in Columbus, Ohio” was mentioned); Concorde was more than an average plane, and with a finite number of pilots, as it is no longer flying.

The list is genuinely useful in an encyclopaedic context, although I confess that it is now longer than I first suspected.

As for notability, I don’t think the existence of the list implies flying Concorde is itself notable – compare List of UML tools; but the aircraft itself certainly is notable, and those interested may have cause to access a list of the pilots. I certainly don’t agree with R. fiend (whom, I note, appears surprised that others find him too quick to delete their work) that “most of those few pilots who have articles should be deleted as well”.

The importance of the topic is head and shoulders above other specialist lists that are easily found (List of Homer Simpson's jobs springs to mind, with rather less encyclopedic merit and non-generic links.)

Finally, and I hesitate to mention it, the notability of being a Concorde pilot, of itself, is rather higher in the UK than it is probably perceived in North America, and one should be careful not to unwittingly enforce a regional bias.

The main point against, distilled from the comments from various people, that is that a large number of individuals are non notable/unlinked. But as commented above, the article provides information not readily found in other sources.

I think Wikipedia would be lessened by the removal of the list. I believe the choice is therefore:

Retain or at the very least Merge notable entries into main Concorde article, using Rehnn83's sensible suggestion. Thank you everyone. Carbonix 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can see both sides, but my personal opinions are eloquently summed up by Carbonix. Concorde *was* special, & in fact once I saw that the list was tagged for deletion, I immediately archived a copy of it - the first time I've done this for a Wikipedia article. I've added one pilot citing his external obituary by way of reference. I can cite references for the two other pilots I've added (and also a flight engineer, whom I didn't). This list contains actual information, & I'm struck by the contrast that it seems acceptable to pad out many other articles with minutiae or personal opinon that contibute little, & which could be inferred by anyone vaugely familiar with the topics in question. Perhaps only names supported by refrerence should be allowed? TimS00 21:14, 26 June 2007 (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.