Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Gray


 * 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. The arguments for deletion were somewhat weak; just because he has an attribute that is not necessarily notable does not mean he is not notable. For instance: George W. Bush is a politician. A politician is not notable per se. Therefore, George W. Bush is not notable. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard E. Gray

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable deceased NASA pilot. Subject of article is not mentioned in any other Wikipedia article. Text of article is an exact copy/paste from NASA's website. Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. SharkxFanSJ (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - not just a pilot but a test pilot - test pilots are notable. Puzzled about the not mentioned in any other Wikipedia article when proposer has deleted the entry for Gray in the article San José State University. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, you are right - he was originally contained in a (very long) list of "Notable alumni" on the San Jose State University article. What I should have said was that he wasn't contained in any other Wikipedia article in his field.  This includes the "Notable Test Pilots" section of Test pilot.
 * Without disrespect to the late Mr. Gray, I'm not sure that I'd agree that all test pilots are automatically notable to Wikipedia standards. The fact that only one reliable source (his employer) is available about him seems to reinforce this.  The accident that lead to his death wasn't particularly notable either.  --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Numerous wikilinks in the article attest to the work he carried out in flight testing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep - While I'd agree that not all test pilots are notable, the ones that achieve significance by flying the more unusual or significant aircraft are. Gray, IMHO, is one of these.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sad that a test pilot died, but no evidence he satisfies WP:BIO. There is no guideline that all test pilots (or mountain climbers, or cave explorers, or balloonists, or daredevils, or anyone else who would have trouble buying life insurance) are inherently notable. If someone dies flying a famous type of airplane, or by falling off a famous mountain, notability is not inherited in either case. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is no way a tribute. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep - The AD-1 was a very unusual airplane, and Gray was not just any test pilot, but a research pilot. LeadSongDog come howl  04:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete That he was one of the pilots for the AD-1 does not necessarily make him notable. According to the NASA documentation on the plane, Thomas C. McMurtry was the lead test pilot for the project. He might deserve an article. The NYT article merely mentions Grey's death in a single sentence (it was unconnected with the AD-1). Even the NASA page devotes almost all its space to the AD-1, not him.   DGG (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep The life story of this test pilot eminently qualifies him as notable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Appears to be mentioned in Outstanding young men of America By Montgomery Junior Chamber of Commerce - otherwise there doesn't seem to be a lot of third party sources to demonstrate notability.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have it on good authority that Dick Gray, as well as his father, test pilot William Gray, have both been nominated for the Aerospace Walk of Fame in Lancaster, CA. IMHO, that alone would merit inclusion, and it is a pity there is not more on him.  Really, build better articles from the existing rather than tear them down! Check-Six (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2009 (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.