Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-flying car


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-flying car

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is still someone's personal essay on a non-topic and has been recreated after speedy deletion at least once. Parts of it are also closely paraphrase from the only relevant cited source, the Pando article. Creator removed PROD citing google hits, but actually reading those sources, which are all coverage of a single press conference on human-driven flying cars, reveals that there is not even a prototype in development; papers are just leading with "self-flying" to be sensationalist. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

When the Wikipedia article about Flying cars was created, which is now a very nice article citing multiple sci-fi links, there was no prototype that could make it ever as a commercial product. Now there are multiple prototypes, some of the manufacturers already accepts orders for commercial release. One of them, AeroMobil, discusses plans to release a self-flying car So if the flying car article can exist, then the self-flying car article should be able to exist as well. It should of course be extended over time.


 * Delete - per nom. Argument above is insufficient. Flying cars have been around as a concept since before the days of the Jetsons, so not having a prototype was not the issue. There's insufficient notability for self-flying cars at this point. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree that the prototype argument was not a good reason for deletion. The insufficient notability argument, that I can understand. Look, I am using Wikipedia on a daily basis to gain more information on certain topics. When I was reading articles about the flying car, I encountered the term "self-flying car". Life is about giving and taking, when I noticed there was not yet a page for self-flying car in Wikipedia, I thought it was my time to contribute,, to give, since I use Wikipedia a lot. But if you are using a tool in Wikipedia to count occurences of terms and new pages can only be created at a certain level of hits, then that is a rational explanation to me. I can live with that. On the other hand, if the CEOs of an American company Terrafugia(cited in the Pando article) and its European competitorAeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil (the second link above) say that they are going to develop a self-flying car, both companies with multi-million budgets, then I believe 3-6-9 months from now, other people will re-try to re-create this page. So other "patrollers" will have to re-patrol the same topic, until the notability hit will be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrminos (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , it's not that we don't appreciate your contribution. It's just that it's too soon for this article to exist on its own, per WP:GNG. The information that these two companies' CEOs say they are going to develop one can go into another article, such as flying car and the autonomous car. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly not notable although possibly way too soon. Still no merit in retaining it at present- maybe re-visit the discussion in 2025.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is where the Autopilot comes in, 2025 is a bit late for something that already exists ! Self-flying is just a re-branding of autopilot, because of the Self-driving car term. Making a flying car took indeed 100 years. That is right. We are there now, finally. An autopilot system, it took less time ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrminos (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some articles may come too late to your taste, but on Wikipedia the consensus is that it is better to go too slow rather than too quick when it comes to content creation (see WP:TIND, even if it is an essay). Tigraan (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems the article is getting voted away. Maybe it was too ambitious to try to create the page. Thank you for your comments. I just tried to defend my article, that is of course normal. I appreciate your effort and comments ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrminos (talk • contribs) 10:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Now with my signature included ;) Mrminos (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (notability etc.), or even speedy delete if the nominator's claim that this has already been deleted is true (if it was speedied, the criterion that applied then applies now, and if it went to full AfD, then WP:G4). I would appreciate if could link to the previous deletion though. Tigraan (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion log: It was speedied as copyright infringement, and it's still closely paraphrasing the same source as before. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This points to as the copyvio. I do not really see the close paraphrasing in the current version. (Of course, that is still a delete...). Tigraan (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2015 (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.