Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Chorley


 * 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. Discounting a couple of contributions which have no basis or reference to policy, clear consensus exists below to delete. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

John Chorley

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Currently sourced only by primary sources and/or brief mentions. Searches did not turn up a single in-depth source about this pilot, was tagged for notability, which was removed with an WP:OSE argument. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The most 'notable' case for Chorley is that he was an airline pilot flying the Concorde plane, which isn't very notable on its own. I don't see much of "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" on the article or in internet searches absolutely required to minimally justify a bio article. The article looks like it has original research, like the "Live Aid" section which the two accessible sources don't mention Chorley at all, seeming to assume he was the pilot for Phil Collins, or "flew all over the world" in which the source does not mention this. The most prominent source is primary, the Ansty Group interview. Most if not all the other sources sources are not passable as a combination of reliable or significant/in-depth. Two sources, aviation enthusiast websites, only mention that Chorley was a captain. To the article's credit, other than the interview, the sourcing is all secondary unlike some BLP and bio articles that get put up for deletion where primary sources are rife among other issues. However, the lack of notability as far as an encyclopedia or Wikipedia policy is concerned, in the real world or attempted to be demonstrated in the article; the lack of reliable, in-depth, secondary sourcing; and the evident original research do not make a strong case in favor of this article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Keep) Firstly, I would like to thank you for your input it certainly raises some important issues. However, the deletion of this page would mean the subsequent deletion of other Concorde Pilot Pages. Captain Chorley set numerous supersonic world records and was also a route check captain making him both a senior Concorde pilot and a notable aviator within the industry. Furthermore, his arguably remarkable career which was involved in Live Aid, Military exercises and being a private pilot for prominent individuals more than qualifies his position for notability. In addition to this many Concorde pilots have Wikipedia pages and both primary and secondary sources to these pages are being consistently added. In the case of this page, considering it’s regular refinement and reference development I argue this page should remain active and be given a time period in which more sources can be added. The issue of notability and source gathering is a moot point and would need to be addressed on thousands of individuals if this page is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetlilac (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I don't find any independent sources. Much of what is claimed in the article cannot be found in the sources listed, nor do I find biographical info elsewhere. Claims like being involved in LiveAid are completely unfounded, by my research. I'm just not sure what the motivation is for such claims but without sources they need to be removed. Once the un-sourced info is removed we are limited to a few British Airways magazines, it seems. Lamona (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I don’t find the argument persuasive that we should justify a “Keep” on this article simply to avoid scrutiny on other pages of pilots. This is not appropriate justification. This person has had a nice career as a pilot, and the Concorde was undoubtedly a notable aircraft. But that doesn’t mean everyone who piloted it merits their own Wikipedia page. Unless valid RS secondary coverage is brought forward justifying a keep, I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is well referenced, and details a long aviation career, including breaking several avionic records. This definitely falls under the WP:BLP requirements. Mithurjan (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Saucysalsa30's reasoning. This article does not contain significant coverage from enough reliable references to justify a WP:GNG pass. Also the records appear to be rather narrow as they are between specific airports, such as London-Heathrow to Cairo International Airport. If the specifics were broader (ie: transatlantic flight or reaching a highest overall speed in a passenger aircraft) then then they would be significant enough to demonstrate notability. I just don't see how records for supersonic flight between a random selection of commercial airports among a rather small group of pilots flying commercial supersonic jets means that they automatically are notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple. It doesn't.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as he set supersonic world records. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mithurjan, Davidgoodheart: you say that he is notable because of world records; I don't see any sources for that - could you provide some links? Including the name of the award? And Lightburst we need a few substantial and reliable sources, independent of the subject of the article. I'm not finding them and none of the ones in the article are good. Do you have some? Lamona (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.