Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallitube

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hallitube
Advertisement for non-notable device. See above for similar products that were speedied and recreated by User:Hallitubes. Bobbis 23:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google hits: 6. Gwk 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. &mdash; RJH 23:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal.  Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising, shameless. Manning 05:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Retain. I find the proposal interesting in itself, although the stub article is uninformative.  Numerous other transportation proposals are in Wikipedia, and are not proposed for deletion.  I'll fill some details in.  I'm not associated with the project in any way.  User:Ray Van De Walker 17:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax ? This is a 60+ page website, 100+ images, many 3d rendered, behind it is a cadre of transportation engineers and urban planning experts. Could one of you visit www.generaltransit.com ? We have not done news release yet...
 * Size of the website is not relevant. I have visited your website and saw nothing to change my vote. Manning 05:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

How can Manning Bartlett be a serious Wikipedia editor if he calls an Anti-congestion initiative "shameless advertising" with the top of the site saying "Nothing for sale"?
 * Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for original research. Even though I listed this for deletion, I do think it is a very interesting proposal. However, it is only a proposal. Unless it is accepted or at least gains support in a wider sense, then it is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if there was a prototype to show or if a technical journal had described it or if a newspapaer had done an article about it, then it could stay. As it stands the only evidence is a single website describing the concept. As an encyclopedia, WP should be very conservative about including new things - it should record history, not be a party in creating it. I am sorry, because I can tell this is something you are passionate about, but you should be directing that energy into gaining support for your ideas from the people that matter (venture capitalists, politicians and the media). Bobbis 12:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thousands of edits over nearly 4 years pretty much gives me some credit as a serious editor. I am not suggesting your ideas aren't interesting or potentially successful. I also have no doubt your ideas might become encyclopediacal one day, and they will rightfully take their place in the pedia. But in the early days it was decided that the 'pedia is not the place to present every new idea on earth. Most new ideas fail and we cannot record them all. Hence the "Crystal Ball" rule that Bobbis describes above. It's nothing personal. Get your project implemented and you'll get no end of coverage here. Manning 10:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The difference (and significance) of an electronic (as opposed to physical) encyclopedia is that it can rapidly respond to events, and has lower institutional barriers to entry. The Hallitube Initiative has over 20 separate proposals, here is what academics say about it from our news release:"An innovative strategy that merits consideration for alleviating congestion and encouraging alternate transportation". Dr. Stephen Mattingly, Univ. of Tex. "A great attempt to solve the current urban transportation problem", Dr. Morton Gulak, Va. Com. Univ. "Maybe we cannot beam you up, but we can tube you over" Dr. Kenneth Waldron, Prof. of Mech. Eng., James Clark Faculty Scholar, Stanford Univ. "Makes a lot more sense than the public vehicle aspect of other PRT systems" Dr. K. Kockelman, Univ. of Tex. "An interesting project worthy of consideration" Dr. Kevin Krizek, Director, ACT Transp. Research Group, Univ. of Minn. "Sounds really promising" Prof. R. Gakenheimer, MIT, Chair, Int. Sci. Cmte. of Coop. for Dev. and Improvement of Urban Transp. "Hallitubes should provide everyone who is frustated and disgusted by the traffic situation in our cities with the hope that very soon,we well be able to cost-effectively tame the monster that the car has become." Dr. J. Kolo, Florida Atlantic University. "The (referendum) microflyovers make sense..." Dr. R. Layton, Prof. of Transp. Engineering, Ore. State Univ. "The proposed Hallitube pylons are an innovative potential use of prestressed concrete.." Dr. A. Schokker, Henderson Prof. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Pennsylvania. "This is an innovative private market solution that deserves further study and consideration." Friends of S. Calif. Highways,Fixtraffic.org.

Traffic is the biggest urban problem of the day. This is not a remote subject, unlike the surface composition of Mars, it carries intense public interest. The costs of this problem are extreme, and we have waited for 20 years for academia and government to act. You say you cannot present every idea. For most areas that makes sense, but in this particular area, you should really present every idea, in part because it does not take experts to examine the viablity. If you become like bureaucrats defending rules, you fail to fullfill a novel role wikipedia can represent. If major academics say this deserves attention, and you suppress, you identify yourself clearly as part of an establishment that apparently has decided someone's interest are served by traffic congestion.

How do you go about deciding that a discussion of the French Trottoir Roulant should have a concept design of an American version removed, or that "car stopping" technologies should not be included in an enceclopedia, when 1000 California mothers could not pick their children up in time because of another police chase ? By definition, the discussion of any concept is an advertising for itself. If you write a thread on a BB, prior to the existence of the web, the idea of an "online encyclopedia called wikipedia" is this a new concept, or should it be suppressed because it is "advertising" something ? You need to look for informational density and novelty to determine if something is an advert. The California Stem Cell proposition was 2 years in the making before it was passed. Should this be suppressed from discussion because it has not been voted on yet ? The inclusion criteria must be 1)relevancy and 2)informational density. The fact that it is being proposed cannot count against inclusion. Would you have allowed Michelson-Morrison to allege that there is no Aether when everybody in Physics thought there was one ? Open up a little, and think about the collective costs of traffic congestion for humanity as a whole. You are saying " let the west fail, we don't like it anyway". Incidentally, the current entry for Hallitubes is not written by our staff. (by 66.27.105.251 16:02, 26 July 2005 )


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.