Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingsuit combat

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. Consensus is that this is not (yet) notable independently from the broader topic of wingsuits. Several "keep" opinions are either hand-waving ("is described online in a number of places") or incomprehensible ("The article is based on fact", "Comico-encyclopaedic synergy is paramount"). Sandstein 06:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment - Sources have been found and added to the article. See my !vote below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 6 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]
- WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 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]

Comment - This isn't a valid rational for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. See also: WP:NRVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Fixed: Delete - it's JUST an xkcd fanboy article. --damiens.rf 17:35, 8 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]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and comparing parachute drops to glider infantry in an attempt to say "this is different, like them" is grasping at straws at best. Those are both quite different and verifiable subjects of established notability; this is about something that has never existed, has never been planned for, and may never happen, created simply because The Internet Thinks It's Cool. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 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]

Comment - Hopefully this article does not become a redirect to a webcomic article. See sources provided in my !vote below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is based on fact. After all, there are things like wingsuit combat. However, the 3rd point in In Popular Culture should be deleted. User:Franlia_atom 06:50, 5th May 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC). — Franlia atom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Cite one example of wingsuit combat that has occured, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of wingsuits already exists. They are far more than Hollywood and/or video game based use in combat. While whole platoons will not likely use them, their use for combat has already been established. I unfortunately don't have my library of saved issues of Climbing Magazine here to cite source for issue and page. However Climbing Magazine, a respected publication for the sport rock climbing and the numerous variations of climbing for styles, with small coverage on related optional decent methods. Some which included those of BASE Jumping, Wing suits, Gliders other than regular Hang Gliders of various sizes. Climbing Magazine reported on a semi-famous in their culture person who accidentally landed in an illegal drug farm and his ordeal with proving he wasn't from the deal or a threat. This Subject has nobility. Wikipedia has suffered massive loss of information from deletes and merge to the point of well written articles be consumed and destroyed for be non relevant enough after being merged. The Nobility cry often shows an ad hominem style attack that is based in lack of nobility far more than the article in question. Let Wikipedia lead for once if it most instead of trail for information about subjects most people don't know. Yes XKCD did a comic about, how many pages have quality articles that have been mentioned in comics? Foreplay was equally listed by XKCD and yet it survived and is of nobility. OR what is Noble about Foreplay other personal need? As subject it is hardly worth the page with has few links and cited sources.... When people cry for deletion their accounts and editing should be deleted and made instead to improve articles. Pop culture makes it way on here and the text is of no great storage costs, the page title no great massive dispute ending with a disambiguation page.... Let it stay and become the article and a wealth of information. Too many niche people have been turned off from editing and making great articles for the deletion/merge crusaders and their prejudice against people who don't have wiki accounts. An interesting social experiment edit an article with an account and without and see which gets the attention/alteration... It gets even worse when there isn't outside documentation to reference or the activity can be questionable for legality Keep and edit & build despite all the haters coming forth with their "citation needed"/delte/merge/remove/censor knowing Wikileaks doesn't have everything for a military classified reference and Non Disclosure Agreements effect a lot. As far as the pop culture of films and video games I have little to say on that despite it be of relevance on the article..66.157.116.29 (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — 66.157.116.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The very purpose of Wikipedia is not to lead. It is to cover subjects that have been established as being verifiability notable in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia and before there is a Wikipedia article. "Leading" is what's called Original Research which is forbidden. Your argument that "Foreplay survived" is both a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and disenginious at best - Foreplay is a long-established sexual and psychological subject that has been covered very extensively in established, reputable, reliable sources. Also your lack of good faith and borderline personal attacks ("people who cry for deletion should have their accounts deleted") are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This may become a notable topic at some point in the future, but it doesn't appear to be now. I would consider changing my vote if I saw several reliable sources independent of the subject discussing this. Does Jane's have something on it, for example? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I notice the title has been changed to Wingsuit flying, which I think obviates the objection of Crystal. There are enough sources for it. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, DGG. An IP address redirected the article in the middle of this AfD. Wingsuit flying is a completely different article and not what is being nominated here. I have restored the actual article up for AfD. Silver seren^C 04:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, my error. I'm now undecided. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, wingsuit combat isn't even a term, so there's nothing to redirect. The Gizmodo article doesn't use that term. An article can probably be made on the wingsuit products that the military is using, but there isn't the sources for a general purpose "wingsuit combat" article as of yet. Silver seren^C 04:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's nonsense.--345Kai (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How so? Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A look through the first few pages of Google shows that most discussion of the term centered on the xkcd strip, with very little in the way of reliable sources. This clearly fails WP:GNG. wctaiwan (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was obviously created entirely as a result of the recent xkcd strip. It can be made again if and when there is enough additional information to warrant an article for the purpose of providing people with interesting information rather than providing them with a chuckle after they read xkcd/1051. Gmalivuk (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is everyone in such a hurry to delete? Check out this source:

Dixon, Donna (April 16, 2010). "Soldier sets wing-suit world record". Army.mil (Official U.S. Army website). Retrieved May 6, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Perhaps the article's title could use revision. I found this source simply by typing: "news, Wingsuit military" in Google.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Wingsuit flying – The topic is at least meeting WP:GNG, per this significant coverage in reliable sources:

Hickley, Matthew (June 7, 2006). "Special forces to use strap-on 'Batwings'". Daily Mail. Retrieved May 6, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Dixon, Donna (April 16, 2010). "Soldier sets wing-suit world record". Army.mil (Official U.S. Army website). Retrieved May 6, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my original comment neither source refers to wingsuit combat so the article name isn't suitable QU ^TalkQu 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, perhaps a simple title change would be in order, such as Military wingsuit applications. Article titles can be easily modified on Wikipedia. The topic appears to be notable per the sources, not the article's title. Several !votes in this discussion are disclaiming the topic's notability based upon the article's title. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough here for a standalone article. Just put a section in the Wingsuit flying article titled "Military" or something to that effect. Silver seren^C 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Changed my !vote above to "keep or merge". Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename per Northamerica1000. --Waldir ^talk 19:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Silverseren. A few lines in the Wingsuit flying article about military uses would be far more appropriate --Lord_kitten ^talk 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted, Wingsuit flying is where this information should be. No need for a redirect as this is an article that, while not created in bad faith, has been "created to be created" simply because of a webcomic "suggesting" it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anything relevant should just be in the wingsuit article. The only reason that it isn't, is due to a complete sense of humour failure. - hahnch e n 02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passionate Keep - comico-encyclopaedic synergy is paramount for the development of cohesive online edutainment. Marilyn Munroe (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what Wikipedia policy does that reflect? Wikipedia does not create or host articles about non-notable subjects just because an online comic with an extremely active fanbase mentions a subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely pointless, people need to stop randallizing Wikipedia 70.110.21.74 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not noteworthy. Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like others, I found this page because of XKCD. I just had to know if someone did this. I got my laugh, haha, that's great, but this article is basically a form of trolling. Trolling by intelligent people is still trolling. We can't have every silly comment by Steven Colbert or Randall Munroe becoming a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.100 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 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.