Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity Guidance

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 no consensus. Article has been significantly expanded since being listed and has borderline notability due to references in popular print and appearances in film. Any decision to delete would need to be reevaluated based on the current article. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Guidance[edit]

Nominated by User:Dddstone but not carried through. Listing now. This article appears to skirt speedy deletion criteria A1, A3 and A7 without hitting any of them. Your opinion is welcome. No opinion is being expressed by me.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unfortunately unverified, lacks of information. Rather delete then keep. Tulkolahten 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time article from 1983: [1]. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One more from Time: [2]. Telegraph UK: [3]. Inc.: [4]. Seems like it makes more sense to merge the gravity boots article into this one. ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the gravity boots article. It appears that this company enjoyed some brief renown in the early 1980s, but quickly disappeared from the map. The information about this brand and it's surge in sales from the movie should be added to the existing gravity boots article. Since I cannot find any specified independent articles about Gravity Guidance, I think it will work best to just merge this into the main article—since the company's now defunct, this article could really never be significantly expanded. Dall ben 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — into the Gravity Boots article per Dallben, unless a large amount of information can be found on the company in the next couple of days. Wizardman 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded and sourced the article. There is not that much more to write about it, but I think the story about the medical misdiagnosis leading to the demise of the company makes it sufficiently notable. ~ trialsanderrors 02:16, 30 November 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.