Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Grand Saut

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 merge to Michel Fournier (adventurer). For the record, when bundling nominations together, please follow the directions at WP:BUNDLE. --jonny-m t 08:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Saut

This is a future event which failed to happen. As of now, there is no announcement if there will even be another attempt. The article now fails WP:FUTURE because it does not meet the almost certain to take place criteria. The same logic goes for Michel Fournier (adventurer) as well. If the jump ever does happen, the article(s) can be recreated then -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the above: my intent in this nomination was that both Le Grand Saut and Michel Fournier (adventurer) be deleted. That doesn't mean the debate can't go in different directions, but I just wanted to clarify my original intent. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, fails WP:FUTURE as it is not almost certain to take place. Even if the event does take place it is not almost certain that the records will be broken. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason not to have an article on the attempt which failed. Rmhermen (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The attempt itself was already notable, based on the media coverage alone. A future successful jump would just make it more notable. Skybum (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Michel Fournier (adventurer). I still think it's notable, but one-article rather than two-article notable. Skybum (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is sufficient sourced content here so that WP:CRYSTAL isn't violated, but I don't think it's enough for its own article. Merge to Michel Fournier (adventurer). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect back to Michel Fournier (adventurer).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - Article already merged with Michel Fournier (Adventurer) so it can be ~~deleted~~ redirected there. --Pmedema (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually no, merged articles in general should not be deleted, when not deleting the target article, as this violates the GFDL unless special measures are taken. Editors do not transfer the copyright on their text (unless they've specifically said so); they only license it, and the license requires that attribution be preserved. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See merge and delete. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What do you mean it did not meet the "almost certain to take place" if i recall i saw pictures of the baloon drifting off.. it actually did take place.. The attempt failed but it was very special and it did happen. After the press confrence tonight we'll have even more infomation to put on here. 142.206.2.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skybum. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please merge, there is little reason to have a separate article just because it has a website and a fancy name. Michel Fournier (adventurer) is not bursting at the seams. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per foregoing reasons. This is all over the mainstream news outlets. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Something being all over the mainstream news outlets means it's current news. That doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. If another attempt is not made (or if one is made, but fails), does this pass the WP:RECENT ten-year test? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's a judgment call, of course. My feeling is, WP not being paper and all that, it's reasonable to keep it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Le Gran saut into Fournier and very strong keep for the Fournier article. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:55, 28 May 2008 (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.