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 No Consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable glider pilots[edit]

List of notable glider pilots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics. A combination of people who were notable in gliding, and others who just happened to pilot a glider sometimes as a hobby. Like listing John McEnroe and Tom Cruise on a list of tennis players. I can't take any list seriously that groups Barbara Cartland, John Denver, and the Wright Brothers together. Category:Glider pilots was previously deleted for the same reason. Saikokira 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's just a poorly formated list, and how many people need a list of glider pilots?--Kkrouni 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might not need the list, but there are 120,000 glider pilots in the world and a fair proportion would find the list useful. The list has now been reformatted. JMcC 09:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless scope is made more explicit. This is like listing Johnny Carson or Gerald Ford at List of golfers. To me a "notable glider pilot" would be this guy or these guys. I sometimes defend lists since I deem much opposition to them to be irrational discrimination, but this is a case of clear WP:UNENC.--Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list has been made more explicit as you requested. There are now two groups: one is of people who have been honoured for their achievements in gliding, the other is a group of people who are famous in other fields. There are instances throughout Wikipedia of disparate people who are grouped in ways that give novel insights. For example I came across a category called Category:People by medical or psychological condition. JMcC 09:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote wikipediatrix "A team of thirty people, each signing up for their own Wikipedia accounts and agreeing to support each other's edits, could literally control almost any article on Wikipedia." In this case three people supported the nomination within 22 minutes. Thirty people seems like an over-estimate. JMcC 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Encyclopedic and specific list. I have considered splitting the list into sections for people who are notable in Gliding or Aviation and those notable in other endeavors, but did not see the need for this. Hoever, this would address the main issue in the nom. Also the last statement in the nom is incorrect. The category was deleted in part because of overlap with this list: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_27#Category:Glider_pilots. Dhaluza 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's reason in the CFD for Category:Glider pilots was, the category is capturing anyone who happened to pilot a glider. Piloting a glider is not a defining characteristic. Exactly the same reason I am nominating this list. Saikokira 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the discussion, the comments were few and evenly split, so this argument did not gain consensus. The closing admin cited "This category has substantial overlap with List of notable glider pilots" as the reason they closed as delete, so this was the final word. Dhaluza 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, objecting to inclusion criteria for some entries is not grounds for deleting the entire list. Dhaluza 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No vote from me, and I haven't even looked at the article under discussion: but please note that the name of a category being a "defining characteristic" of its members is a requirement for categories but is not a requirement for lists. If it were, a number of featured lists would fall at that hurdle. AndyJones 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that deletion of the category removal of the categorisation was sensible for people whose main activity was not gliding, but the list is useful when publicising the sport. JMcC 22:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC) & JMcC 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the category was deleted for retarded reasons, the same thing shouldn't happen here. The nomination is either arguing for list to be split, or for "people who just happen to pilot a glider" to be removed. Neither of these are grounds for deletion. Kappa 10:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . It is an indication of the broad appeal of this minority sport. Francisco de Almeida 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - these sorts of lists aren't the best content on Wikipedia, but I don't see any problems with this one and the justification for deletion doesn't seem very strong. If you deleted this and kept Soaring Hall of Fame, that would introduce unacceptable bias on a World View level. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Solipsist 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but establish general rules (applicable to other similar lists) that would answer the objections of the deletionists. Divide into catagories of technical innovators (MacReady, Wrights, Lilienthal, etc.), record holders (Moffat, DuPont, etc.), celebrities for whom soaring is related to their work (McQueen, Piggott), and this should even also include fictional glider pilots (in an appropriate section) such as Thomas Crown. Possibly delete the celebrities for whom soaring is only a pleasurable hobby, or better, put these into a separate section. Help fight deletionism! - Leonard G. 01:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If a movie or TV show has an American president, and he flies in a jet plane with "The United States of America" written on it, you're seeing Air Force One. Other than the Harrison Ford movie and the NCIS pilot, this is essentially a list of films with a movie set or a miniature prop. Mandsford 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment seems to have been put in the wrong article. It does not mention the list in question and puts no arguments against it. JMcC 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Geez, that was a lot of lists to slog through tonight, and the closing administrators have to go through a lot of debates. Folks, I appreciate the nominations, and enjoy reading the articles, but spread it out some. We had 161 articles tonight. Granted, I voted to delete a lot of them, and I agreed with many of the nominations. But each of these have to be evaluated on their own merits for an intelligent decision to be made. On this one, I don't think notable glider pilots is any more useful than notable whitewater rafters or notable stamp collectors. Wonderful hobby for persons with lots of money and time, but not the basis for an article. Mandsford 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think we should be able to find Otto Lilienthal and Jean-Marie Le Bris in the same place? Kappa 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect there are many articles that you do not find useful. However there are some people, including me, who find this article interesting and useful. This alone should be the criteria. If we deleted articles on whether the majority found them useful, Wikipedia would shrink markedly. Gliding is a minority sport, so there will never be a majority. However there are a group of people with articles who have been awarded medals and other honours for their activities in gliding. They have to be grouped somehow. There are also people from surprising walks of life who have also contributed to the sport. For example a Prime Minister of France, the first man on the moon and several actors have all chosen this as their discrete past-time. I also find this interesting. Similarly King George V was an avid stamp-collector and I believe there are some, though not all, who would also find this informative about the man, if grouped with other participants.JMcC 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps I do not understand the process, but I would like some reassurance. I guess that some articles are on only a few people's watchlist. The article can be proposed for deletion by an active group of campaigners and its supporters can be easily outvoted. Similar tactics were used by Militant Tendency to undermine the Labour Party.JMcC 09:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified Keep the notable glider pilots, certainly. But I too am a bit doubtful about the others. The heading states:

This list of notable glider pilots contains the names of glider pilots who have achieved fame in other fields as well as in gliding.

But John Denver didn't achieve fame in gliding—he was simply a famous singer who also flew gliders. The same, I suspect, applies to several of the other people. The second part of the list is at risk of degenerating into a Trivia section IMO. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if kept, "notable" should be removed from the title, it is (and must be) implied in the title List of glider pilots, just like our other lists where notability is implied: List of teetotalers, List of people from California and gazillions of others. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I agree with NigelG: this is valid if it lists people who are notable in the field of aviation. Too indescriminate, though, I think, if it contains people whose notability was in other fields but who happened to fly gliders. Agree with Carlossuarez46 about the rename, if kept. AndyJones 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The list does meet WP:BIO#Lists of people requirements. Also the idea that people just 'happen to fly gliders' is wrong. There is a training and licensing process, which is a relatively high bar to clear--it doesn't just 'happen'. Dhaluza 09:58, 8 August 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.