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. I'm sorry XB70Valyrie but there's a clear consensus that this article is unsuitable for WP for various reasons. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems facing airline pilots

[edit]

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

This is an unsalvageable personal essay replete with WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this were a personal Essay, there wouldn't be a single citation in it. These is no doubt that if you can't find a single professional airline pilot in the USA that wants their children to follow in their footsteps that the occupation is in trouble. That being said, this is a notable topic which needs definition on wikipedia. I have openly invited fellow wikipedians to help edit this article. I hope I will get more than just a few to do just that. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems the title is too vague, upon reading the article it reads entirely focused on affected airline pilots in the United States. The sources however suggest that this is a subject that is worthy of our attention. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do here would be just extract the neutral info from the refs and apply it to appropriate article regarding aviaation and delete the NPOV stuff. The Determinator p t c 22:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. looks like a few cleanup issues and maybe a change in the article title perhaps, but it doesn't read like a personal essay and it is referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into airline pilot which is currently a redirect to aviator, but which doesn't deal with the topic well. The topic airline pilot can then be developed into a balanced account of the profession, with a historical and global perspective, to improve on this soapy stuff. Warden (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Essay (yes Virginia, personal essays can be cited) that is hopelessly WP:POV and WP:SOAPy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic article. I could write "Challenges in the design of injection molded computer monitor chassis", and provide many citations, but it still would not make the topic encyclopedic or notable as a standalone topic under our standards. The fact that this essay is heavily biased is just icing on the cake. Gigs (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it has proper sources but it fails WP:OR because WP:SYNTH. I agree it reads a WP:ESSAY and therefore it should be deleted. The Determinator p t c 21:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OR - The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This article is filled with sources. The synthesis is indeed there. It's there to illustrate the full scope of what faces airline transport pilots in the USA. Yes, in that perspective I would agree. The article is heavily synthesized.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The sources are fitted together to fabricate a synthesis. The wording is inflammatory and the aim is prescriptive rather than descriptive. Nothing here is salvageable as a stand-alone article or as a section merged to Aviator. The author of this material is obviously angry and is clearly wishing enrage the reader. We are not here to do that (see WP:ACTIVIST); we are here to write descriptive text rather than to get a reaction from the reader. If any of the references are worth using elsewhere, for instance at the unwritten article called Airline pilot, I recommend XB70Valyrie stand down and let another writer do the honors. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped short in issuing the fact that tired, underpaid pilots make for an unsafe industry Colgan Air Flight 3407. Do you want to fly on an airplane with a pilot capable of applying for and receiving food-stamps, wiping the sleep out of his/her eyes? I could put that in there too. But I haven't. Perhaps you might be mistaking where the "enraging" feelings that a read, or even yourself for that matter, could be coming from. Clearly the facts of what has happened to this industry in and of its own right is enough to enrage most people, since they rely on air transportation in many of their every day lives. This thought ran through my mind as I created the article. "Am I writing this to make people angry? No. But the facts alone sure could do that." Trying to be constructive, but you have brought up a critical element of the article. Well noted. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people are voting to delete here doesn't mean they aren't sympathetic to your cause. The problem is that it is a cause, and Wikipedia isn't the place to write persuasive essays. Gigs (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the article title starts with "Problems facing..." seems to me that it is fails WP:NPOV. At best this could be merged into Aviator as a section of challenges faced recently by commercial airline pilots or with Air Safety where there is a section on "Human Factors". This article does not deal with general problems facing airline pilots. It is an essay on how poorly paid the author perceives them to be paid. BTW, many people find it difficult to have sympathy for a profession where most people make $60k-$150k a year based on skills the government paid them to learn in the military (yes, that's very much my POV). Vertium (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad. That right there, is unfortunately the attitude many who don't understand this occupation have. "You're a spoiled military brat". I know you didn't say that, but you implied that this is what many people will think. I just added a section addressing that very false perception. Very few military pilots are willing to leave the safety of the services to take a job as an airline pilot. Very few senior pilots ever see $150K. I can tell you didn't really read the existing article where I've already pointed that out. I know that's your point of view, and your point of view just needs friendly updating, that's all. Most of the dis-assembly of the airlines, and thus this occupation has occurred in the new millennium. You have no idea how many of my new friends think I must be wealthy, when in all reality I have student lenders are coming after me in court since I'm unable to repay my mountain of student loans. $110,00 in all. With amortization I'll pay back over a quarter million dollars. Realistically, I should probably file for bankruptcy until I am making enough money to begin paying for my student loans. My experience is by far not isolated. I started flight training since 2 months before September 11, 2001 when the career still looked half way decent. I emerged from getting my degree at a major aeronautical university and completing my flight training by myself in 2008. And I still have yet to make over $30K in any given year. You are thinking of per-deregulation or perhaps the brief dot-com era where there was a flourish of prosperity. I was talking to a US Airways pilot in the concourse the other day. he told me what pay-scales will reflect. He's been flying a 737 (seating capacity 150) for 23 years and has yet to make more than $83,000 in any one of those years. That's because US Airways kept filing for bankruptcy (once in 2002 and again in 2004) to "remain competitive". Can the article be renamed "Challenges Facing Airline Pilots" then? Sorry about the dissertation. I'll also address your concern of flying fatigued by expanding that already existing portion.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unsympathetic, nor do I think anyone is a "military brat" (I was one of those, I recognize the symptoms). However, the very fact that you felt the need for the dissertation illustrates the POV aspects of the article. This article is to advance a "cause" and is not written in to be encyclopedic, which is the reason for my delete vote. Vertium (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOR The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. There is only one statement in this article that is not linked directly to a citation. Further per WP:NPOV It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. Am I missing some point here?--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made numerous edits and vast additions. Please read full article before voting.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-neutral soapbox article, not really an encyclopedic subject. MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. This article is the very definition of both. Roodog2k (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article though well intentioned is WP:SYNTH and Wikipedia is certainly not about promoting campaigns of any sort unless they have been reported by numerable third party sorces.Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Looks like a personal opinion essay, rather than an actual article. —Comp dude¹²³ 16:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My "delete" !vote remains, even after the June 5 changes to the article. I see more of the same angry text violating NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I've moved the article HTML to my User Page. I'm honestly sick of trying. You'll find this experience will dramatically reduce my participation in this "society". But you guys are all experts unwilling to give a hand and probably couldn't be more thrilled at my announcement.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it's important to think about whether the content you are adding really belongs in an encyclopedia. That's basically what Wikipedia is, an encyclopedia. It's perfectly fine to move an article to your userpage if it's going to be deleted. If you are committed to working on it more and improving it to gain a more balanced viewpoint, go for it. It's generally advised to start working on a new article in your userspace (that's all pages that have the prefix User:[your username]) and then move it to an actual article once you think it's ready. —Comp dude¹²³ 23:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As requested, I've re-read the article completely and my vote does not change. This isn't about the lack of citations - which can be included equally in a personal essay as they can be in an encyclopedic article. This remains a "cause" essay, heavily laden with a POV and isn't suitable for WP. There's no doubt that the author is passionate about this topic, which seems to be contributing to it's lack of balance. Vertium (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2012 (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.