Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmonauti


 * 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. JForget 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Atmonauti

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

Nom - unsourced and largely inaccurate. This isn't a term used by English speaking skydivers, and it describes a type of horizontal flight skydivers have been doing for decades. In English, we just call it "tracking" or a "track dive" but none of the material contained in the current article would be suitable for an article on "tracking" for reasons already noted. Rklawton (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note - I should probably also mention that the article is entirely self-sourced. Rklawton (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable sources can be produced to verify that this is not a neologism, but a notable concept. All I see in googlenews is self-generated, evidently. It certainly hasn't made google books yet. Note that I've blanked the article as a copyright infringement, since it uses content previously published at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=559, but I would not recommend deletion as a copyright infringement (it is foundational, but has several times been removed), since permission alone can invalidate that reason. I think the article should be considered on its merits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - how are editors to consider the article's merits when it's been blanked? Rklawton (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look in the history . Abductive  (reasoning) 07:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, one possibly independent Google News hit (in Italian), no Google Books or Scholar Hits. Clearly some sort of neologism or promotional term. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:24, 2 September 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.