Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airborne Tracking Imageing

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No context, written like a 5-year-old--Zxcvbnm 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 04:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't figure out what this is about, but even if it is a notable and encyclopedic topic, this is not the right article for it. Smells of original research. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What in the world?? This looks like it was written by a five-year-old prodigy. No context, barely coherent. I would say speedy delete if I wasn't marveling over how strange and unusual this is... Grandmasterka 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Weak keep per Eloquence's comment, and as this is becoming a coherent topic now. Grandmasterka 02:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --James 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Man, it's written in metric. Nah, per above T K E 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, definitely original research in the style of writing. Can't we just speedy this away? --Terence Ong 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per grandmasterka. If this needs mentioned, it needs some parent article to justify its content. If it needs to be kept, at the max its contents (after major rewrite) should be transferred to some other article. --Soumyasch 09:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per grandmasterka --Deville (Talk) 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Edwy 17:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because, although it could be real, right now the article reads exactly like original research and/or a hoax. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 18:20 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete - It sounds like a high-school paper and is lacking in Wikipedia cred, starting with the misspelled title. (It receives bonus points, however, for using the metric system.) But the subject is of importance in rocket launch telemetry and the like; I believe it was an airborne tracking camera that documented the foam strike that led to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. If the article is improved drastically, and probably trimmed somewhat, it should be kept. Otherwise, try again. ProhibitOnions 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am in contact with the user. He's not a five-year-old, but he's not a native English speaker and dyslexic on top of that. He does, however, know a lot about both the technology and history of spaceflight, and I think he could make useful contributions to Wikipedia with some mentoring. I'm making an attempt to work with him to bring the article up to snuff - please don't speedy delete it.--Eloquence* 02:02, 3 April 2006 (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.