Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flygrossing


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Flygrossing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An aerial training system with no indication of notability - indeed no evidence that it even exists. &mdash; RHaworth 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever. If it takes off (!) it will no doubt get coverage in mainstream sources, and then we can have an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No mention in reliable third-party sources, only videos and social networking sites.  ...  disco spinster   talk  19:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does not fail to meet the relevant notability guideline! Coverage include an article in an Estonian Financial newspaper, an article in an Italian newspaper, Innovation Festival in Tallin, just to name a few. References and external links have been added. The fact that the references are in Italian and Estonian does not mean that there is 'no coverage' or that these sources are unreliable! English Wikipedia also accepts references in foreign languages, but only says that if both are available and are of the same value, the English-language ones are preferred. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (Quote from Wikipedia, note the words 'preferred' and 'if'). The sentence does NOT say that sources in a foreign language are unacceptable or unreliable! Also Wikipedia stipulates that the sources must exist, but specifically states that ease of access does not constitute a point in favor or against the case of verifiability. The article was not even on-line for 24h when it was suggested for deletion. It still needs to be improved, not deleted. Discospinster, where did you see 'only videos and social networking sites'?? ... Cleyn talk  19:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC) — Cleyn (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The technique/company/whatever you'd call it, is real, but it does not appear to have achieved notability yet. Google News finds just two articles, both from the same source and both from March 2011. Could be recreated in the future if the subject gains wider coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2011 (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.