Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingsuit combat: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:28, 4 May 2012

Wingsuit combat

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

Lacks notability JoelWhy (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's interesting to me. There seems to be a planned military product of the concept, which is described online in a number of places. DWorley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to Wingsuit flying. The term "Wingsuit combat" is not widely used, if at all, to describe the proposed military use (it isn't used in either of the references in the article). There's insufficient information to support a whole article. If someone can suggest a better name and another sources to expand it then maybe it's a keep. QU ^TalkQu 13:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further developed from a stub. Otherwise it's just a reaction to XKCD [1] Alex (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but find a way to make sure that it stays underlined. XKCD reaction is worth it when people really do learn things from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.146.82 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- yeah, it was fun but stuff like this is supposed to be ephemeral in the first place. Cellocgw (I think) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - it's an xkcd fanboy article. Coolug (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the XKCD people that it's just a reaction to the article. ZtObOr 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely the circumstances of its origin do not erase the fact that this is a sourced article on a real topic. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's irrelevant. The primary problem here is that the topic lacks notability. A single article discussing a possibility of future combat at best warrants a quick mention in the article about wingsuits.JoelWhy (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Space warfare exists, and only has a few examples. This is like a development of Parachute drops, and THAT has a separate page from Glider Infantry. Joesolo13 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to xkcd. This is Malamanteau ([2]) all over again. At the present time, a small story of wingsuits developed for combat use is not notable enough to warrant keeping the article. If wingsuit combat actually becomes widespread and notable, the article can be created as an article on the topic, not an xkcd reaction. A viable alternative to redirecting is deleting and salting the article for about a week. 70.72.198.177 (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Comment''' That's irrelevant. The primary problem here is that the topic lacks notability. A single article discussing a possibility of future combat at best warrants a quick mention in the article about wingsuits.[[User:JoelWhy|JoelWhy]] ([[User talk:JoelWhy|talk]]) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' Space warfare exists, and only has a few examples. This is like a development of Parachute drops, and THAT has a separate page from Glider Infantry. [[User:Joesolo13|Joesolo13]] ([[User talk:Joesolo13|talk]]) 20:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Redirect to [[xkcd]]'''. This is [[Malamanteau]] ([http://xkcd.com/739/]) all over again. At the present time, a small story of wingsuits developed for combat use is not notable enough to warrant keeping the article. If wingsuit combat actually becomes widespread and notable, the article can be created as an ''article'' on the topic, not an xkcd reaction. A viable alternative to redirecting is deleting and salting the article for about a week. [[Special:Contributions/70.72.198.177|70.72.198.177]] ([[User talk:70.72.198.177|talk]]) 22:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)