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. Consensus is to keep D P 01:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bannister[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, who posted the following request at WT:AFD. No comment on the merits at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I question the notability of this biography/profile. Reasons include: - not notable beyond his piloting of the Concorde fleet; the pertinent information could easily exist in a more concise form on the Concorde entry - last two paragraphs (more than half of the article's length in words) reads as self-promotion and is unverifiable. tl;dr: not particularly notable & possibly self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.52 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being chief pilot of the Concorde fleet is notable, as it made him one of Britain's most senior airline pilots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Concorde#Restoration/Concorde aircraft histories. Upon a search of the news archives, every mention of Bannister seems to be associated with the Concorde, most recently with efforts to restore the aircraft. There really isn't any notability independent of the Concorde. It should also be noted that there is apparently a major executive at Ford (Michael E. Bannister) who is frequently called "Mike Bannister" in the media. While we don't have an article on that guy yet, should one be created it's probable that this would become a dab page. As an aside, the pic of Bannister, File:Mike Bannister cropped.jpg, was cropped from File:Conc01.jpg, which was originally uploaded to Wikipedia as PD-self by now-retired PaddyBriggs; however, the same user admitted that he's in the original picture, which calls the copyright assertion into question. The images at Commons may need to be nominated for deletion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like rather weird logic to me. Every mention of Barack Obama is probably associated with the United States, since the only thing he's notable for is being president. Does that mean we should merge his article into that one? Obviously not. And I fail to see what difference the existence of another Mike Bannister makes to the existence of this page! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because WP:NPOL explicitly states that politicians who have held national offices are notable. Plus Obama was previously a prominent legal scholar, probably to the point of meeting WP:PROF. As to this gentleman, everything he's done that's notable in a Wikipedia sense has to do with the Concorde, and indeed, every mention of him in the press is in an article dealing primarily with the Concorde. Any mentions of him in those articles do not rise to the level of "significant coverage" in the WP:BIO sense. To use a more apt analogy, this is more like having an article about a company's official spokesperson because that person is quoted repeatedly in articles about the company. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am fully aware of WP:POLITICIAN. But the analogy is still an apt one. I do not agree that Obama would qualify on his legal background. He is notable simply as a United States politician. Take that away and he is not notable. But if you believe he would be notable as a lawyer, try someone else. Say, Norman Schwarzkopf. He is notable purely as an officer in the US Army. Take that away and he is not notable. Is there any reference to him that doesn't mention the fact he is (or was) a general? I very much doubt it. Most people are notable only in connection with a single thing. If they were not a member of a particular organisation, involved with a particular project or held a particular office then they would not be notable. Bannister is no different in this respect from Obama or Schwarzkopf. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're missing the point. Schwarzkopf has a substantial amount of material written not only about the military activities in which he has been a participant (as with the coverage in this article) but also about him as a person, whether as a general or as a private individual (no such coverage in this article). I call for a merger here precisely because Bannister is merely mentioned in coverage about other topics. If there is any coverage on him personally, I haven't found it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that I have nominated File:Mike Bannister cropped.jpg and File:Conc01.jpg for deletion at Commons. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conc01.jpg. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Mendaliv. Bannister is not a public figure outside of "Concorde pilot". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bannister is the most experienced pilot of the very unique Concorde. He captained it's last flight. I believe that qualifies as a widely-recognized contribution to aviation, meeting WP:BIO Skrelk (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really agree with that. The "widely-recognized contribution" criterion for people is more one for situations where source material that demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG isn't readily available (usually where it's an ancient topic or the materials would be in languages other than English). It's one that's invoked where everyone in the industry or field mentions so-and-so for what he did, but none of that coverage seems to be in-depth or substantial to the point that you'd consider it suitable for GNG. And even if we presume notability is met here, that doesn't preclude merging or redirecting. That outcome is especially appropriate where two topics are intimately intertwined, as is the case here. If Bannister has notability, it's only for his piloting of the Concorde. So instead of having a short stub about him, talk about him at greater length in the article on the Concorde. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way did Banister contribute to aviation? Yes, he flew the last flight of a notable aircraft, but notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this person other than he happened to fly a notable airplane. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable person, see no compelling reason to delete. -- GreenC 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. How is he notable? What makes him notable? "No compelling reason to delete" is not an argument - you need to argue why this article should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for his work as a pilot, obviously. And no I don't need to "argue", if I think he is notable I have a right to say so. Just as RoySmith immediately above has a right to say he isn't notable. -- GreenC 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search for "Mike Bannister". The first screen of results included, in order:

our own wikipedia article
a LinkedIn page listing a whole bunch of people by the same name
a blog thread on airliners.net
a youtube video
somebody else's twitter feed
somebody else's facebook page
somebody else's github page
another github page for the same person
what looks like our subject's personal web page
a page on a concorde web site (under fleet -> crew -> pilots, right next to the list of cabin crew)

That doesn't add up to notable to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping after the first Google page is a bad idea. Presumably someone already did that before nominating it for deletion. Do you think maybe there might be other sources than the first page of Google? I found lots of sources. Google Books for a start has dozens. But since this is a career that ended in 2003 we have to look in offline databases (Gale, NewsBanks, Ebsco, ProQuest), and sure enough there are tons of sources. This guy was the face of the Concord, he was often in the news, on CNN and ABC Nightly news, AP, Reuters, etc.. giving quotes and being the general all around expert on the plane. Further he played a significant role in the cleanup of the Concord crash. Here's just a couple but I don't have time to transcribe them all here. If you want ask for help from WP:REX.

The Money Gang (CNNfn). 11/07/2001. "Concorde Returns to the Skies". Guest: Captain Mike Bannister
Aviation Week & Space Technology. 11/12/2001, Vol. 155 Issue 20. "Speedbirds migrated back to New York airspace last week." Abstract: Contains information about Bannister's life and career.
Sunday Business (United Kingdom). 07/30/2000. "British Airways’ Chief Works to Handle Aftermath of Concorde Crash" Abstract: Details about Bannister's activities after the crash.
Associated Press "Concorde Gets Supersonic Test" 07/17/2001.

-- GreenC 19:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of above sources, plus:
- "Aircraft That Became a Celebration of the Skies", The News Letter (Belfast, Ireland), October 28, 2003, which includes a handful of biographical sentences on Bannister, just over my usual bar of "signficant coverage". Paywalled at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109317005.html
- "The Top Brass: And Now for Some Real `Blue Sky' Thinking ; the 10 Leading Pilots in Britain, as Chosen by Their Peers", The Independent (London, England), July 14, 2002, paywalled at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1692704.html (Not a lot of coverage, but in essence, but a little career detail I haven't seen elsewhere and the selection is more or less an award).

There's more, but in any case, I believe there's enough coverage to write a short but useful and neutral article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Editors interested in improving the article are welcome and encouraged to contact me for help in retrieving the paywalled content if you don't have highbeam access. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:27, 24 February 2014 (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.