Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyWay Group


 * 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 keep. Excluding ducks and socks, the consensus evident in this discussion is to keep the article. Discussion about article content, renaming, forking, merging can be taken up on the article's talk page. Lourdes  08:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay Group
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Page is riddled with original research, unreliable sources, and WP:SYNTH. Sources do not add up to WP:CORPDEPTH. (Note - Not related to the content of the page, but likely to this discussion, there are a number of blocked accounts and WP:SPAs who have been editing the page who may show up in the comments below. Just an FYI for the closing admin). CNMall41 (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article, as i see, has the only one goal to defame some organization. It is written negatively and it is on purpose. It is about a group of companies that does not exist legally. The absence of direct evidence proves it. But it mentions the name of some technical project, that was mentionet positively on different sources. For example: Here there are only negative sources selected.


 * The aforementioned article alleges that Skyway have never implemented a single project, although they have just created the first product of the range, and the rest is still being created. For any sane person it is obvious that such a sophisticated commercial product as a transport and infrastructure complex cannot be implemented in such a short time.


 * The warnings from banks mentioned in the article apply to companies that have no relation to the transport developer company. Moreover, the warnings themselves are not an evidence of fraud, but the article presents them as if they are a proof of something.


 * The article alleges that there is no technology at all, that Skyway is only a fundraiser, which is a lie.


 * We can learn about developer on official site http://sw-tech.by/


 * In general, the article is written at a level that does not correspond to the reputation of such a serious encyclopedic edition, like wikipedia.


 * In connection with all the above, I kindly ask you to remove this article. Igor Koiro (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2019 striking sock contribution (UTC) — Igor Koiro (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Word up! I would call the entry somehow like “Fear of SkyWay non-implementation” that is really irrelevant to be covered in objective knowledge base that Wikipedia is. Taking into consideration Rail_transport history it’s like to draw a new house project, to lay the foundation and just next morning to claim its failure of building… If smb intends to warn he will better to post warnings on appropriate platforms or to think about creating of a warningpedia. I’m voting for deletion too!  striking sock contribution
 * Comment You are a WP:SPA, which is not prohibited in WP, but it means you need to be very (very) precise in your objections or they will get ignored here.  You are making contradictory claims above; saying a group does not exist but then saying that a group called "SkyWay" does exist and is doing projects. Key items this WP:AFD will consider are:
 * 1. Is this a notable company or group that appears in several significant independent and reliable sources (per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP) – if not, it will get deleted?
 * 2. If it passes GNG, we also ask (although this is not specifically an AfD purpose), whether this material is:
 * 2a. An unambiguous attack page and therefore should be deleted immediately under WP:CSD, criteria WP:G10, and/or
 * 2b. A page with such biased content (e.g. WP:SYN), that it is effectively a WP:TNT case (e.g. if you started editing it, it would end up blank).
 * If this article survives the above challenges, then it will probably will survive AfD. If you want to contribute, you should read the above WP policies, and be more precise in your comments on this page. You can add internet pages/references from the internet using by enclosing the URL in hard brackets like this SkyWay scam warning in New Zealand. Britishfinance (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found no evidence yet stating that the SkyWay Group is itself a legal entity. Furthermore, the SPA himself states, "It is about a group of companies that does not exist legally." This is not to say the group does not exist or that it is "illegal". However, it is a non-legal entity AFAIK. So regarding this specfic point, the SPA did not contradict himself.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment You provided 2 links and both are self-published materials. www.technology.org says clearly: "Source: SkyWay". Your account is created just recently and it is probably one of sockpuppets of User:Yauheni moskov (admins, please check). You have chosen the name of known critic of Skyway so I don't think that this opinion is independent.Dron007 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Speak for yourself. Dron007 WP:SPA - an account created with only one purpose. He edits the SkyWay group page. This member takes an active part in the discussion of all headings and edits of this article only. All his edits concern only this section. He leads a discussion with all participants on their pages and discusses the section only negatively. Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See my activity since 2006 in Russian Wikipedia.Dron007 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dron007 is username similar to the one actively trolling SkyWay on the web. striking sock contribution  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeRRR (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Careful with untrue accusations Leonid Kotvitsky. Look at the talk page sub-heading 'String Transport→SkyWay Group name change' for discussion with user:Dron007 about careful alteration of misleading wording to PREVENT untrue negative implication for the SkyWay group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be mentioned here Igor Koiro suggests that the regulatory warnings from banks don't actually mean anything in particular or aren't referring to particular instances of fraud. It need to be said here that these references DO say something: that an internationally recognized organization has issued a very particular warning to the public of any given country that they should not invest in this specific company because it is illegal, risky and dangerous to do so. The fact that so many countries have issued different types of warnings about different aspects of the company demonstrates how notable and pervasive the marketing techniques of these companies have been. They are hardly empty warnings, and each one is different for the specificities of the marketing plan applied in their country. There are also REPEATED warnings like the 7 times SkyWay group companies are mentioned by CONSOB, the Italian regulatory agency, from 2014 to 2019. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As most crowdfunding financed startups are illegal, risky and dangerous, beyond controversy, warnings have the right to exist, but these are pure WP:SYNTH and WP:G10 to create a WP article about a company  fitting not to WP:NCORP containing only list of warnings and nothing more.  striking sock contribution  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeRRR (talk • contribs) 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:SYN In this article, references to sources of information do not meet encyclopedic requirements. Instead of the definitions of SkyWay Capital Ltd and Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd, these names include links to articles in the media that are destructive in nature. The author deliberately cites facts in a negative way. This violates the basic principle of Wikipedia - neutrality. Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to administrators. Account Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year is one of many others, including already blocked accounts who are created recently and use names of well-known critics of Skyway. Leonid Kotvitsky has Youtube channel where he unveils fraud projects along with Skyway: Dron007 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - help improve it. It seems to me like there are a lot of published verifiable sources on this subject. There are definitely users who regularly post unverifiable propaganda in concerted editing wars but we are trying to make sure that such postings are quickly removed. Users have been going to considerable effort to translate articles from different languages from third-party verifiable sources and to collate a wide-variety of different published sources to build up a set of data about this set of companies and its practices. We are trying to use the talk page to achieve consensus before publishing to the article. But it's easy to panic if an edit war starts and large sets of changes start to be made which undermine all the good research which has been done. Recently the article name has changed. It has been agreed upon that there is not enough verifiable scientific research to justify covering the 'string transport' of the old title and that the sum of verifiable research we do have (which is growing by the day) concerns the companies who promote the science (as opposed to the 'science' on which it is very difficult to find third-party assessments at all). The name change was approved and we've attempted to update the article accordingly.
 * The last couple of days has seen consistent efforts by new users to add self-promoting unverified propaganda to the article. It has been a very concerted effort to make changes to undermine the article and its structure. But we've been doing our best to return it to how it was before these attacks and then gradually improve it in a fashion which achieves consensus among users. But such attacks make it difficult for change to be consistent and constant. There are obviously parties who are better served by this article being completely changed or removed. Before the name change had occurred I would have aupported a deletion as well. The unverified self-promoting resources made the article very confusing. But since the article has changed to an analysis of the SkyWay companies, it seems to me an enormous pity to remove the only place where balanced, critical voices on a subject can be brought together. If this site is deleted, the first access people who use an internet search engine will get are to the pages and pages of self-published 'SkyWay' propaganda. The many, many articles in Greek, German, Lithuanian, Indonesian, Italian, Russian and Arabic will be ignored. People will not have a chance to share their data at the talk page. They will be silenced. In other words, people will be misinformed. I agree that something has to be done to ensure that this article is protected and edited responsibly; in its best form it was hardly perfect but that doesn't mean it should be removed. Being critical of the article just because you don't like its contents will not solve the very real problems its removal will create: a misinformation vacuum.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m seeing everything to be in favor of the article deletion. Even those who support its keeping cannot bring any referable WP:PGLIST item nor forcible argument for saving it as is. However according to WP:VOTES and WP:NOTDEM it would be preferable to find a WP:CONS. As you ask to “NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - help improve it”, I would see you to be welcome to propose it re-edition describing SkyWay project on every side. Otherwise thanks for agreeing with its deletion as it's currently harmful to project (WP:G10).  striking sock contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeRRR (talk • contribs) 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Being currently a startup technology venture project SkyWay can be called a notable company too soon. As well as it’s too early to make any conclusions about its “implementation failure”. Few organization warnings and negative publications violating WP:NPOV cannot be sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and be a Wikipedia article basis. In my point of view such concern based post is rather worthy a specific forum / community board topic and I’m leaning toward this article deletion more than its improving. It seems to be more reasonable to publish another one including both pros and cons based on really reliable refers. striking sock contribution


 * There are clearly serious issues with this company or group (I can see from my google search). However, articles that veer into WP:G10 (per my comments above), can get deleted quickly even outside of AfD.  You need to take out any wording/language in this article that is potentially POV or not fully substantiated by a reference.  In fact, for situations like this, it is often better to restate sentences as "On the X date, the Y [well-regarded] newspaper, made the following statement about the company: "[insert sentence from the paper]" – E.g let the RS do the talking, not you.  Take a look at contentious articles such as Catherine Blaiklock - very bland sentances that let the high-quality references do the talking (and if they can't, then maybe the statement is not supported).  When editors adopt this approach in such articles, the edit war intensity drops because it is harder to contest directly chronicled/quoted facts from quality WP:RS. Britishfinance (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -, can you please provide me with the links you feel show that the topic meets WP:NCORP? Everything you say above is related to content issues, not notability. We need to have significant coverage in reliable sources which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Content issues can be addressed on the talk page. This AfD is specifically addressing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem is that the article is no longer about the 'science' of the skyway technology; we've established that there isn't really enough verifiable non self-promoting references to 'skyway' to make this 'notable' in and of itself, but considerably more about the companies as an entity and the problems they've had with regulatory services in selling their products in a wide range of different countries. Take the Belgian FSMA reference or any of the regulatory warnings listed in the article to national banks. These warnings provide real proof that there is something notable to be observed/commented upon. We know that there are a number of different companies registered in the Virgin Islands, London, Saint-Lucia and Belarus who belong to the Skyway Group as is stated in many of these verifiable references. I can see the problem with finding something 'notable' when the entire subject of an article has changed. But there is certainly much more that is notable now that the subject of the article is actually referring to what is being referenced in the verifiable sources. And it seems to me that there are more than enough of them. And I should note here that the article did not contain any self-referencing or independent research when the request for deletion was submitted. You can't blame an article for the work of vandals, sock-puppets and white-washers. The links in the article are all to third-party sources some of which are extremely reliable. Hope this helps. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also on my user:Zaxander talk page you can read the translations of the Lithuanian DELFI article which quotes Cibas the responsible party for the financial regulatory service there who is scathing in his criticism of the SkyWay Group. He defines the complexity of the marketing techniques these companies use. I'd be really surprised if you read this article you'd still think that the 'SkyWay Group' is not in some way 'notable' if not really surprising in an of it itself. The Italian article I translated also more than suggests that this group of companies is highly notable for what it does (or in the cases they refer to) talk about A LOT but then don't actually do: "SKYWAY - the 'flying' tram company which has never realized a project'. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * DELFI article (Lithuanian) - Letteraemme article (Italian) - Translations: user:Zaxander
 * Prepare to be surprised as I still do not find these references to meet WP:ORGCRIT. The first one is really good, but it is more about the founder and his dealings (potentially illegal). If you were able to find more of these, an article could possibly be created for him. However, the article is about HIM not specifically about the COMPANY. The second one does not talk in-depth about the SkyWay Group. It mentions individual entities but nothing in-depth about the Group. I understand where you are coming from trying to tie these references together, but that is exactly what WP:SYNTH. The references need to talk in-depth about the company, not mention the company and talk in-depth about the founder.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah you surprised me. What do you actually mean? Are you trying to say that there is not enough notable material about either the technology or the businesses? Or that we should actually go back to how it was when the article was about the science? Because the company itself goes out of its way to make a connection between the science and the companies. That they are one and the same. And besides, although the article may say the name 'Yunitskiy' it is clear that they are not actually referring to what HE does personally, but what his companies do. You have to deliberately go out of your way NOT to see a connection between them. When an individual directs and own companies it is only natural that you'll use his name to refer to what the companies do. Sorry but you're clutching at straws if you're saying that the Lithuanian article is in fact about Yutnitskiy and not his companies. Besides the article doesn't just talk about Yutnitskiy - it talks about him and his representatives, i.e. it's talking about the SkyWay companies. And then there's all the official warnings for SkyWay companies from regulatory organisations. They don't mention Yunitskiy at all. There are enough references that comment on either the notability of either the SkyWay companies OR Yunitskiy, OR BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. How much notoriety do you actually need? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying the exact same thing I have said since I recommended the page for deletion. The company does not meet notability guidelines. What the company does to connect itself to the technology is irrelevant. I am not sure how to say this more clearly, but your assessment above is useless without being able to show WP:ORGCRIT. Warnings from regulatory agencies don't meet ORGCRIT. Also, I will address your comments below separately, but your "clutching at straws" comments as well as those below are bordering on not WP:AGF. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, in your deletion request you state that the article is 'riddled with unreliable references and independent research'. I'm intimately familiar with all the references that are referred to. There is no independent research and a large number of the references are to very reliable sources such as national banks. On exactly what are you claiming that the article is riddled with independent research and unreliable references? It doesn't make any sense and incorrect assumptions like this would suggest that you or whoever actually made the request for deletion is deliberately ignoring or obscuring the facts.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your misquote of me above needs to be corrected. I am not sure how you missed it since it is literally written above. I did not say "riddle with unreliable references and independent research." I said "riddled with original research, unreliable sources, and WP:SYNTH." If you would read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you will hopefully understand how they apply to the references on the page. Also, being reputable and being reliable are not the same thing. A bank may be a reputable source, but it is not necessarily reliable. The warnings are also primary sources and the content on the page cited to them is original research. Again, if you can read through WP:ORGCRIT which is the guideline specific to the references required to establish notability on companies, please show me any of the current references from a national bank meet that criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I love this in the deletion request 'there are a number of blocked accounts and WP:SPAs who have been editing the page who may show up in the comments below'. Does that sound strange to anyone else that you have to warn people about the possible danger of people who just might comment negatively on the deletion request? So have any of the blocked users you warn us about, have they actually been responding? And if they have: so what?!! Why would you possibly need to warn us about that? How can you actually justify negatively influencing us about the supposed dangers of users who may make themselves heard and who may once have been blocked? Surely anyone's opinion is equally valid. Or are you trying to insinuate that if there are negative comments they are probably posted by users who have edited the page and who probably have been blockied? Why on earth would you do that? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad you love it. Now that you ventured beyond assuming good faith, let me be clear about a few things. First, the statement was made for administrators, of which you are not. If you took the time to read (which you haven't given your misquote above between "independent research" and "original research"), you would see that. I have no idea what the SPA or SPI accounts have in mind when they edit this article. Some may want to keep the page and others may not. I don't really care, but left the message for the closing admin which is not uncommon and not meant to swing a vote my way. I don't tolerate drama. If you feel I have violated Wikipedia guidelines by posting that above, please take me to WP:ANI. If not, I would suggest you WP:FOC or you may find yourself there. I still have not seen a valid argument from you which shows how any of these references meet WP:ORGCRIT. At this point, your arguments are ad nauseam --CNMall41 (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ihanks for informing me about all that. It still seems pretty strange but I am the only one who mentioned it so I'll just have to accept that it looked strange to me and me alone and comes from my ignorance. I actually do assume your good faith. I'm just trying to understand the basis for the argumentation and the pretty strange wording of the deletion request. You're actually saying that the references from the national banks are not reliable? And if not, if we can prove they are reliable resources then will the subject be considered notable? If this subject is really not worthy of an article because it simply not being notable enough then I've wasted a lot of my time researching a subject which has influenced people I know and stolen a lot of their money. And they did that thanks to them being misinformed by a Wikipedia article which inflated the science and which they wrongly assumed was fact and was therefore a good way to invest their money. I'm all for a deletion but considering what would come in its place, i.e. pages and pages of misinformation, it seems an enormous pity. Surely you would concede that the references that do exist won't disappear or become any less true in the future if you accept they're true now, and therefore that in the future more references will only accumulate knowledge and make the companies MORE notable not less? Surely there should be a place to collect this data? And here I'm referring only to third-party assessments, not self-aggrandizing propaganda. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)'
 * Checking for clarity here: are you really claiming that national banks and regulatory agencies are in any way unreliable sources? I could possibly see why you could question 'banks' in a general sense; they've hardly got the best reputation at the moment. But 'National Banks' which are internationally recognized organisations that represent national interests. And a large number of them have commented on SkyWay companies as included in the links below which I checked in comparison to the Wikipedia guideline for the notability of companies. It's really hard to imagine that there are sources which make something more notable than that.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you know why the Russian version of the Wiki article on SkyWay was deleted? Maybe there is something to learn from that which might apply here. siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 14:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know why it was deleted. We assume that it was because there wasn't enough scientific research; it was after all an article about 'String transport' and not the company. And although it may be easy to assume they didn't change the article into a discussion of the company like we have here because they didn't have the verifiable resources we have now, we don't actually have any proof this is true. Surely that would be easy to follow up? It's certainly an interesting question. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It was deleted in 2016 and the reason was absense of notability. That was so in 2016 but now we have enough sources. I don't know why it is still not possible to create the Russian version.Dron007 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The only issue I can see is that there are not many sources in the English language.  But those that are there seem to indicate sufficient notability.  Any concerns over its neutrality should be addressed within the article.  They are not reasons for deleting the article.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , content issues are not the reason I recommended the page for deletion. POV and other issues can be addressed on the article page which I noted above. I am concerned with notability and was wondering if you can provide me with a few references that meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I shoud have been clearer. I was refering to reasons given above by, which at the time of my comment was the only support for deletion. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the clarification. Can you address the question relating to WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete Comment [(from, don't !vote twice)] Pay attention! The article was in the section "Technologies" and the tags in the article remain the same: "categories: monorails, proposed rail transport, infrastructure, rail transport, all modes of transport." The page is already indexed and has a rating in search engines for direct requests, so the page was specially stolen.
 * The content does not correspond to the description of the technology and has no encyclopedic value.
 * If the article is about the company, you need to describe the history of the company. The company is little known and is actually a startup of WP:NCORP. The General audience of the company among users of the social network is very small. Not even enough to check the official pages in social networks. And such articles are aimed at destroying the image of a young growing company. And aimed at destroying their business reputation. WP:G10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the talk page of the SkyWay Group article a sub-heading was added ages ago to discuss the important issue of changing the 'Categories' and the 'See also' links which are misleading. The 'see also' links have already been updated to included MLMs and crowdfunding. These categories, however, need to be discussed and consensus needs to be reached before they are changed. That is no good reason for questioning the validity of the content. No one wants to destroy the reputation of a company. They just want verifiable resources well-represented and not distorted.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Three years ago the topic was not notable, article contained 100% of self-promoted materials and could be deleted safely. Now there are many independent materials about Skyway especially after entering UAE market and signing MoU with Roads and Transport Authority. The problem is that this group of companies tries to enter different international markets and many materials are localized (India, Lithuania, Indonesia) or have only Russian versions because there are many investors from Russia and Belarus. Another problem is that it is MLM company and investors are very interested in creating positive image of the company. So there are many advertisement materials we need to filter. I agree that some sentences should be reformulated to make the article neutral but that is not the reason for removing the article. I may look as a WP:SPA but my account was created in 2006. This topic is interesting for me and I wish the article became a good starting point for readers who want to know valid information about this company/technology. If we delete the article they will most probably get one of many promoted materials. Dron007 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , being a SPA has nothing to do when you created an account, it has to do with your editing activity. There is nothing against being a SPA, but I wanted to point it out so that administrators can take that into account. As far as your !vote, you mainly address content. This again can be addressed on the talk page. We are here at AfD because of notability. Can you, as I have asked others above, provide me with the links that meet WP:ORGCRIT? If the page is kept after this discussion, everyone can certainly work on the content issues. But, it makes no sense to go through that process if the topic isn't notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's take Australian project, cancelled now. It was covered by popular news sites of Adelaide:    (some problems opening last one now. Text is available here: ). So it has "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources". Sources for Lithuania, India, Indonesia, UAE present in the article. Whole articles are about SkyWay, it is not just one-line mention. Of course most information exists in Belarus and Russian sites. Many of them independent like Onliner, Tut.By mentioned in the articles. There are many not mentioned yet like  or Popular Mechanics:  (it is placed on Skyway partner site but it is PDF of the printed version of the magazine. I cannot find it placed in the other place now.) Dron007 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will go through these one by one. However, this is a page about the company, not the technology. References will need to meet WP:ORGCRIT.
 * 3. This reference is a podcast and hardly something that is fact-checked (meaning it would not be reliable as it is just one person's opinon). It is also about the technology, not the company.
 * 4. - SAA
 * 5. - Not in-depth about the company as it mainly talks about the technology. In fact, it is basically WP:SPIP as the majority of the article is quotes from the company founder.
 * 6/7. Again, this one focuses on the technology, not the company. I would also consider this routine coverage as it simply announces that the technology will be installed at a specific location. What specific information in this reference is about the company?
 * The last two references are in Russian. The Popular Mechanics article I cannot translate as it is PDF format. However, the first one I used Google Translate for and it is solely about the technology again. There is nothing in there specifically about the company (founding, funding, etc.). This page is simply using the company technology in an attempt to show the company is notable. That's now how WP:NCORP works. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FIVEaa is not a one person's podcast but one of the biggest Adelaide's radio stations notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article FIVEaa
 * I agree that these articles tell us about technology because it is the only product of SkyWay group of companies. But it is also about projects, investments and they mention company which realise these projects. In the article above it is stated that "Mr Hook travelled to Belarus last year to meet Dr Yunitskiy and they have now formed SkyWay Transport Australia to push the idea in Adelaide." Isn't it information about the company? Nobody else offers this technology (according to Yunitsky) so we cannot separate the technology from Skyway company and from Yunitskiy. If any of these three (technology, projects, company) is notable (and it is!) we need to have just one article covering them all. That's why I think that our article should have more information about technology and projects.Dron007 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the issue. The references talk about the technology or the founder, but the only ones that talk about the company only mention it, not focus on it. Taking these references together to show notability for the company would qualify as WP:SYNTH in my opinion. The article you are referring to talks about the founder and the technology he invented. It then mentions he formed a company by the name of SkyWay Transport Australia which is one of the companies of the group. However, it does not talk in-depth about the company, just the founder and the technology. The page would be more suited as one about the technology (or the founder if there are enough references like the one you reference above). The relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT. If you can show me how the references meet that criteria, I will gladly withdraw the nomination for deletion. There is a suggestion below to merge into the technology name which at this point is likely the best WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If we change the article to the arcticle about technology only then all information about shares, investments, companies, possible Ponzi scheme, warnings of financial regulators, Yunitskiy, projects' cancellation, work in different countries will became irrelevant. We would only have to quote self-published materials or Yunitskiy's words copied by 3rd party sources. There are sources that cover all aspects of Skyway - structure of companies, achieved results, criticism of technology. Look at Onliner articles.Dron007 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should also be emphasized here that with time it has become clearer that articles that mention the 'SkyWay technology' and/or Yunitskiy ARE talking about the company and how it works. It's marketing techniques involve everything Yunitskiy does and says. He attends every SkyWay event. He is the primary sharehold of the companies. He is SkyWay. Marketing practices should in the future be part of the article, but any valid verifiable that discusses the technology of SkyWay or its inventor/promoter, should by seen as valid sources of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Let me add 2 cents. For those who doubt whether the Skyway Group is a legal entity: they have an investment memorandum that clearly confirms this.


 * See here (page 11 and also page 7):  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.197.219.110 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)  — 109.197.219.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * legal entity
 * An association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual that has legal standing in the eyes of law. A legal entity has legal capacity to enter into agreements or contracts, assume obligations, incur and pay debts, sue and be sued in its own right, and to be held responsible for its actions.
 * http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html
 * A group of companies consisting of legal entities does not itself imply that the group is in of itself a legal entity.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 14:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * non-legal
 * ''not related to, qualified for, or phrased in the manner of the practice of law (distinguished from illegal): a nonlegal explanation.
 * https://www.dictionary.com/browse/non-legal
 * talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. This article was originally named String transport and was about the technology. It has previously been to AFD under that name and I have now added the previous AFD link box to the top of this page.  It has only recently (22 Feb) been renamed and refocused as a company article.  The company may not meet ORGDEPTH, but that only shows that the rename was a bad idea and should be undone.  The technology, as a technology, cannot pass GNG as standalone article either.  What is notable here, and what got this kept at the first AFD, is the questionable investment schemes that have got the attention of financial regulators around the world.  That is what the article should focus on, and that is why it should be kept (with a title like Skyway investment irregularities or something similar). SpinningSpark 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that investment irregularities of some company could be more notable than company itself. There are many reliable sources that describe Skyway projects, some articles cover financial or technical aspects. Too narrow name will not allow us to cover activiy of this company and its projects. Dron007 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In more mature companies critical contents will tend to have their own article such as Lawsuits and Controversies of Tesla, Inc. and Criticism of Walmart. Having a critical article on the company but no main article about the company would be quite irregular to say the least.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a move discussion in February. I am not sure what would take precedence between the AfD to keep the topic of the technology or the move discussion that came after. I would say that there likely are enough references to support a page on the technology, just not on the company. So is your proposal to merge the applicable content back to the name "string transport?" I think that would be a solution here since the company itself falls short of WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear here: whatever is decided, there are not enough verifiable references on the science to justify an article on the science alone. If there was, the name wouldn't have been changed in the first place. The problem is that the only valid verifiable references are on the company. This has been decided and agreed upon by many users. The argument is NOT whether or not the name change was valid and this should not come into any argument on a discussion of notability.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Weighing in on the 'keep and rename' argument: maybe we should consider simplifying the name from 'SkyWay Group' to simply 'SkyWay' which allows the article to either develop in whichever direction the research takes it without restricting it to the companies and the companies alone. After all, there is general consensus that 'SkyWay' involves a group of companies which promote a particular technology. 'SkyWay' is present in most of the business names associated with the company. 'SkyWay Group' is not. It could reduce the chance it has of being deleted and is in many ways a compromise that could please more of the people who have entered this discussion. It may give us more room to maneuver in the future and reduce that chance of the article being deleted again. It's also the name used by the current Czech and Norwegian articles. I've included a discussions of these issues on the talk page.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Primary criteria for the notability of a company (Wikipedia guidelines): a company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The SkyWay companies HAVE been significantly covered. This is clearly so in the official warnings from regulatory agencies from the Czech Republic[], Italy (Confob), Belgium (FSMA)[], Germany[], Greece[], Lithuania[] and Slovenia[]. They refer specifically to companies in the SkyWay group and not to Yunitskiy himself or his technology. They HAVE, therefore, had multiple assessments. These are independent assessments by reputable regulatory agencies. These sources ARE dependable. These sources are also used by third-parties to make their own judgements about these assessments by national banks and regulatory agencies. Many third-party articles quote them as a reliable source. But we didn’t use these third-party assessments. We went back to the originals themselves and quoted them. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This deletion discussion has taught me about the actual value of primary references for use as notability. Please note that a request for more secondary confirmations by verifiable references of these warnings has been put on the talk page with each of these primary sources. But do note that we have many verifiable sources already. Some of them have been collected since this deletion request was made. I included examples of verifications of these primary sources in my comment on the accusation of vandalism below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RSOPINION

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact opinion:, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see and.


 * talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources of each need to specfically mention SkyWay Group or the SkyWay Group of Companies. We cannot simply combine sources together to make inferences which are not stated in the sourced material. That would be WP:SYNTH. If you have found material warning against investment partners such as Sky Way Capital or Sky Way Invest Group you will have to see to it that the SkyWay Group or the SkyWay Group of Companies are mentioned. I see in a recent edit you deleted some of your example links. I was able to confirm only that one of them mentions the SkyWay Group (i.e. https://www.lb.lt/en/news/bank-of-lithuania-warns-skyway-activities-in-lithuania-illegal)talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 16:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry that happened by accident. Believe me I didn't want to remove all the links I had so carefully pasted into place. I agree 'SkyWay Group' is an abstract term that doesn't actually mean anything on its own. Because there are so many companies that are registered in the name of Yunitskiy promoting the SkyWay technology, and different members of these companies are active in different countries, I agree it is very confusing. In an earlier version of the article I suggested stating that 'SkyWay Group' is a 'blanket term' to refer to a group of companies. This was later changed simply to 'term'; but it's important to state that this is actually NOT a company name; it's just a term we use to refer to the large group of companies which you helped us make in the talk page. What unites these companies is the fact that they promote the 'SkyWay' technology and are founded/owned (arguably) by Yunitskiy who invented the technology. I thank you for your help with this list, by the way. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it's appropriate to include SkyWay, String Transport technology and the associated companies within the scope of this article. "String transport" isn't a generic concept like people mover; it's a specific product developed and promoted by a dedicated company, similar to ULTra (rapid transit).
 * Most of the information about the technology was removed because it was sourced to the SkyWay website instead of independent secondary sources. The remaining content focused on the companies, so it seemed appropriate to rename the article to reflect this.
 * Most of the media coverage that I've found has only superficial descriptions of the technology, focusing more on the company and its investment schemes, but I would support adding more about the technology if it can be appropriately sourced. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete As i see, the article is infuenced by someone`s business interests. The souces are contradictory, the information represented is prejudised. It is seen even from the biased souces on which the article is based on. For example, the article is about the business scheme of SkyWay, but there is also an information about testing site with photos. Anyway, it doesn`t matter because it is better to wait and see if the tecnology will be implemented. If we will see a project at the markt soon - it will be evident that it worth the article. And if the company will be oficially charged with fraud - it will be evident what to write about too. Now it is just either an attack page or PR-activity. --Swin3000 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)  striking sock contribution  — Swin3000 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please note that the reference you mention is concerning the EcoTechnoPark. If you notice in the actual article there is only one sentence about this place in Belarus because there is not much verifiable commentary on the test site. You could hardly say that from this one sentence that it was prejudiced or biased by the 'onliner.by' article you include. Not a single word of this single sentence was influenced by this article. Also, this deletion request as has already been mentioned is based on the notability of the company, not the technology and whether it is ever implemented. It's a pity that your request for delete is not very useful. Maybe you could reread the article and strengthen your argument? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Zachar Laskewicz Actually, I just mentioned only one source to be brief. But if to analyze the sources, we can see that the article is based on low-quality information like poorly reliable local media (The Baltic Times, Onliner) and primary sources (bank warnings) not acceptable according to the WP:ORGCRITE. So there is no sources worth mentioning here, and, accordingly, there is nothing to read about here. Also, according to the WP:ILLCON if an organization that is not itself generally notable (there is no actuall information on string transport in the article) will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct, the sources shall not be used to establish an organization's notability. So I think that the article should be deleted. I guess that the purpose of the article is to warn someone about the SkyWay Group actions. But people are already warned by the local authorities as we can see. And what if other countries dont warn their civilians on SkyWay because it is legal there? Wikipedia is definetly not a place where governments and corporations should do their business.  Swin3000 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)  striking sock contribution
 * @Swin3000 Thank you for letting me know what your concerns are about the source material. Your valid concerns about the verifiable references are deserving of attention but would be far more useful on the 'talk page' of the article than here. And if you are going to mention sources at all, mention ones that ACTIVELY influence specific points made in the article. And don't list them here as they don't concern the notability of the company but the contents of the article. You advice can be really helpful but not here. Make another deletion request if this one is rejected and address the issues you suggest there. I'm sure that if your concerns are valid, someone else will do it anyway. But addressing those issues when we should be discussing the NOTABILITY of the companies is a waste of your valuable time. Also, are you suggesting that we should include information about countries that have NOT placed a ban on the sale of SkyWay products just because they well haven't encountered them yet? Maybe an individual entry for every existing country which says something like "Syria has still not placed a ban on the sales of SkyWay shares"? Are you suggesting that the warnings from a country should not be accessed by Wikipedia because, well, people have some type of responsibility to find this information out for themselves (despite the fact that this information is hard to find, unlike the hundreds and hundreds of pages of self-aggrandizing propaganda which are repeated ad nauseum in almost every conceivable language) and that pooling of this information is somehow wrong? I think you had better be very careful about making claims like that; the pooling of useful verifiable information to help people make better choices is why Wikipedia exists. What you are suggesting - misinforming by including excessive unnecessary information and making people wade through pages of propaganda to find the truth - is the exact opposite. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article is written one-sidedly. Significant objective things are not mentioned, there is only negative examples. It looks unreliable and unprofessional from the point of view of journalism. Are pieces of information, without detailed descriptions, can be an objective presentation? The journalist must describe the material in an unbiased manner so the reader can come to conclusions on his own. That’s why this article should be deleted as an example of unfair and superficial work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.82.109 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)  — 37.214.82.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   striking sock contribution
 * Comment. The article is written one-sidedly. Significant objective things are not mentioned, there is only negative examples. It looks unreliable and unprofessional from the point of view of journalism. Are pieces of information, without detailed descriptions, can be an objective presentation? The journalist must describe the material in an unbiased manner so the reader can come to conclusions on his own. That’s why this article should be deleted as an example of unfair and superficial work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Юрий Сыров (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)   striking sock contribution  — Юрий Сыров (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thans for your criticism but this comment is totally unrelated to the AfD issue: if the company is NOTABLE or not according to Wikipedia guidelines. These are all issues that can be confronted in the content of the article through its talk page. Please check the wording of the deletion request to argue for or against this issue.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or rename. The article in its current form should be deleted or renamed to "Financial problems of SkyWay Group" (or something similar). Most sources describe only financial violations of the company but do not mention the products that this company produces, or the technology that it develops. Financial problems of the company cannot be more significant than the company itself.


 * Information about the regulatory warnings is about 40% of the article, information about its products or technologies that it develops - one sentence.
 * This SkyWay Group created the so-called “unicar” and “unibus” and presented them at the exhibition Innotrance 2018, but the article does not have a single word about it: and


 * In addition, the article is far away from being neutral. For example, information about the negative assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering three times emphasized in the article, along with quotes from their report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The content of the article is not the subject of the deletion request. They need to prove notability of the companies. The two links you include, furthermore, are to self-referencing, self-promoting sources that have absolutely no meaning to anyone. Even if what you were saying meant something to this deletion request, your links are just skyway propaganda. If you really want the article to be deleted and renamed you have to find reasons that the company is NOT significiantly notable and that the resources they do use to show this notability (i.e. the internationally recognized regulatory agency warnings) are untrue and unusable. Considering that they primary links they do have are so such reliable sources, i.e. national banks, it seems to me that you would not have any success there. If you do ever have better links which show actual scientific assessment of the technology, believe me the article will include them and the section on the technology will grow in size. The only reason this aspect is so weak is because there is so little published verifiable research on this subject that is not propaganda. In the verifiable resources they refer to the things that are included in the article, like the negative assessment of the testing sites in Moscow. We include these because these are the only things that the verifiable references say. But in any case, that has no relevance here because you need to prove that the company is NOT notable in some way, not that there is something wrong with the content which can be improved from consensus on its talk page in the future.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It should be noted that 'Andrew-Postelniak' 'Yuri Sirov' and 'Swin3000' are all new users who don't seem to have contributed to any other discussions and who seem to have come into existence purely to ensure this article is deleted. It would be fine if they made suggestions that related to the deletion request but the only comment on problems they have with the 'biased' content of the article, the value of propaganda and its supficial journalism. All these issues are irrelevant to this deletion request. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has the name "SkyWay Group", but the main content of the article describes only its financial problems. So I suggested to rename it. Furthermore, you probably even didn't review two of the above-mentioned links. The second link is a link from the official Innotrans website, and it proves that the company was there in 2018 and exhibited their vehicles. Comments like "your links are just skyway propaganda" are obviously not neutral, and it seems that you are also interested in adding only negative information to the article. I used to edit different articles as an unidentified user but created my account today to write what I think here - editing of this article was restricted for unidentified users for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I am listening to you and paying attention to what you're saying. It just doesn't mean anything in relation to this deletion request. And for the record: I'm only interested in adding verifiable sources to the article. You state that you think I'm only adding criticism. Although I may believe this untrue, what I think hardly matters. It would obviously be unfair to include only negative comments. We really want to see positive reviews we can use. You should make your feelings known on the talk page of the article and not here because your concerns do not relate to the subject of the deletion request which is whether or not the SkyWay companies are NOTABLE. Your concerns with my editing (which could be completely valid) are still entirely irrelevant. And I did check the two links you included. One of them is just the same self-promoting website with hundreds and hundreds of pages of unsupported tales with computer illustrations and sometimes links to dodgy YouTube films which in and of themselves can't mean anything scientific anyway. And the link to the exhibition site, obviously self-promoting and meaningless, I did look at nonetheless and you can't include something like that to further an argument. It has be an assessment of this technology from someone who is not related to it; an exhibition of a technology at a science fair is obviously self-promoting and doesn't mean anything. So what: they exhibited at a science fair. They've done that a lot - its how they get business. But explanation of such instances of self-promoting exhibitionism can't promote the argument for science. If you really think I only include negative commentary then you should make your feelings known on the talk page and explain why with valid reasons for me showing bias. But you really have to find better resources than the ones you used. Believe me, we only took the science out because it was completely unverifiable and misleading, not because we wanted to. But as you seem to think I could never say anything positive, please post your observations to the talk page of the article and request that other people appraise your material. Any valid scientific documentation will be appraised, analysed and included in the article. There are a lot of people working on the article such as [user|Dlthewave] who promote including more verifiable science. That is where we should be having this discussion not here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete Comment [(from, don't !vote twice)] 1) The article is to be deleted for it refers to unreliable sources of information WP:NCORP, for instance: “In 2016, a Russian government panel that evaluated the technology called it "innovative, but only in theory".[6]”
 * I draw your attention to the fact that the cited source published the article of the political opposition to the then acting ruler who supported the technology and lied on purpose. There are words about innovations in the original document, but nothing about its theoretical nature. On the official website (in Russian) of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation there appeared the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Council held on February 11, 2016, during which the SkyWay transport system was recognized as innovative. This is the link to the document:


 * In English the relevant paragraph reads:


 * “V. On consideration of SkyWay Technologies Co. application (Davydov, Shatrakov, Slepak, Zarechkin, Polozov-Yablonsky, Zhankaziev) 1. The following information has been taken into consideration: 1.1. SkyWay Technologies Co. (Yunitsky) has spoken on the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way; 1.2. The Expert Council has admitted a possibility of recognizing the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative.
 * 2. There has been resolved as follows: 2.1. Recognize the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative; 2.2. Recommend SkyWay Technologies Co. to additionally present a project for application of the proposed transport system Sky Way in specific operation conditions. In cooperation with the Industry expertise centre of import-substituting technologies in transport, it is recommended to prepare a comparative analysis of the proposed innovative solutions vs analogic existing technologies.”


 * Instead of quoting the source which is available on the official site, the author of the article has spent time finding a site that published an outright lie on this document due to subjective reasons, which is what he needed doing the same thing, because their goals are the same - defamation. Moreover, feeling the lack of negative info the author posts this lie twice, in the “Background” and “Test projects. Russia” paragraphs.


 * 2) Can we believe in good intentions of such an author at all? No, meaning his point of view is not neutral WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV, WP:CSD, criteria WP:G10.


 * 3) The article is to be deleted since the author’s point of view is extremely biased and thus violates the stated “Neutral point of view” requirement WP:NPOV. For instance, in “Abandoned projects. Russia” the article reads:


 * “In 2007 and 2018 pilot projects of the SkyWay Group technology were planned in Russian cities. But specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering gave a negative assessment of the project and it was not implemented.[3]”


 * The author refers to the article from a Sicilian newspaper which was written during the election campaign of the Mayor of Messina who at the time was supporting a transportation system reform. The political bias is transparent here. Anyhow, even without taking this fact into consideration, it is necessary to note that the author has found the real fact dating back to 2008, but neglected the following developments, moreover, he has lied about a negative assessment of SkyWay’s recent projects by specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering.


 * Vice versa: ten years after that event specialists of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering realized their mistakes, appreciated the works of Anatoly Yunitskiy and offered cooperation! It happened after a visit to the SkyWay EcoTechnoPark by the Professor of the Department “Bridges and tunnels” Vladimir Fridkin, Doctor of Engineering Science, who had doubted on the prospects of SkyWay transport previously. So, as a result, in December, 2017 an agreement on comprehensive cooperation between Moscow State University of Railway Engineering and “SkyWay Technologies Co.” was concluded. The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies while designing, developing and implementing SkyWay transport in transportation infrastructure.


 * The very fact of this final recognition is easily traceable in the official Moscow State University of Railway Engineering newspaper «Инженер транспорта» (Transport Engineer) №16 (824) dated December 22, 2017, where on page 3, in the article «На чём обогнать самолёт» (How to Overtake an Airplane) it is clearly written: «Нельзя не отметить, что 7 декабря было подписано соглашение о комплексном сотрудничестве между ЗАО «Струнные технологии» и нашим университетом. » (It should be noted that on December 7, an agreement on comprehensive cooperation was signed between “SkyWay Technologies Co.” and our university.)


 * Referring to the above I am sure that the author of the article “SkyWay Group” is way too much opinionated, hence his approach lacks the required Neutral point of view and thus this article is to be deleted from your pages.
 * Subject to deletion. Igor Koiro (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC) striking sock contribution


 * Comment:@Igor Koiro Please note that even if these complaints are valid they should be addressed to the talk page of the SkyWay Group. It has been made clear again and again that the reason for this AfD is the NOTABILITY of these companies. Your complaint about the contents of the article are irrelevant here and they will be ignored. They are irrelevant NOT because they are necessarily wrong, but they don't relate to the AfD. They could be useful, however, to change the content of the article by adding them to the talk page and have other users discuss them. Or alternatively you could make another deletion request based on the issue of CONTENT and VERIFIABILITY [not NOTABILITY]. I encourage you, however, to repost your concerns to the talk page where they will be analysed and assessed. Also remember there is no single writer who you can blame this article on. A whole group of people have been writing it together and it's just wrong to blame a single person. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:@Zaxander|Zachar Laskewicz The usage of unreliable sources which i have showed is about NOTABILITY WP:NCORP. In fact most of the the sources the page is built on are not reliable. I have just showed it on some examples (Italian and Indian). Both of the articles were written in a period of regional gowernment elections and served to the one of the competitive sides interest (the other side was the protogonist for implementin skyway project). I think i have argued this fact enought in my deletion request. The arguing of neutral point of view absence WP:NPOV is to the case to. It characterizes the sources in the point of trheir unreability.Igor Koiro (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Igor Koiro Sorry the quality of the references has nothing to do with the potential NOTABILITY of the SkyWay Companies. I can understand your concerns with these articles and I've copied your information to the talk page of the SkyWay Group article. But proving these articles wrong does NOT make the companies less or more notable. Your concerns will receive the attention they deserve. I can understand your frustration but your interests are not served in this way. If this AfD is unsuccessful, there is nothing stopping you from making a new request for deletion based on the questioning of the source material used. But seeing that most of the sources are, in fact, extremely reliable I doubt your success in that regard. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Zaxander I understand your frustration about the deletion of the page you (almost alone) have done such a great work to rename and then to rewrite in accordance to your own non neutral point of view WP:NPOV. But the fact is obvious: sources are unreliable. Thats why we cant talk about the notability WP:NCORP of skyway group, which is argued on the basis of such a sources Igor Koiro (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC) striking sock contribution
 * @Igor Koiro - Just to make it clear: the renaming of the article was not recommended my me. All I did was beg that someone else who knew more about science would back up the scientific information with real references. Otherwise I had nothing to do with it at all. Someone else I don't know proposed the name change. I didn't even know you could change name of an article. Other users supported the idea. When someone suggested it and I thought it was a good idea, I supported it also. That is my complete involvement in the name change. You should check your information before you make such a claim. Also something is notable if it is mentioned by enough verifiable sources. I'm afraid according to these conditions it is very notable. The regulatory warnings are the most reliable information you can get. Arguing about the quality of the references could be an issue, but in the case of the regulatory agencies I'm afraid it's not. You're always free, however, to bring this up if it survives this deletion request.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Igor Koiro - Also if all that you say is true about a collaboration between MSUoRE, why then is there no Russian article on this subject? And what does a collaboration between the MSUoRE and SkyWay technology actually mean? Are they planning to build projects in Moscow? Will they collaborate or something? Another test site somewhere in Russia maybe? Or is this just tacit approval that otherwise has no practical meaning? And if this is all true how does it make the article LESS notable. Surely if what you say is true, it just helps make Yunitskiy and his SkyWay Group of companies MORE notable not less.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The "article" represents blatant negative WP:SYNTH and WP:G10 obviously not matching to either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, no matter SPA or Expert would it be reported by.  Referring to sources that can be considered as reliable partially or not at all, and covering not proved facts but only blown up troll like suspicions, it can not claim, as currently drafted, to be a kind of “alternative” or “independent” opinion. It’s strange that Wikipedia severely banning any advertising and / or promotion passed this defamation. Stating nothing about core of technology developed by the group of companies the post just enumerates snippets of doubts that are not accusations as it mentionned in the beginning  the “story”.  Where are links or mentions of functional test polygon that is EcoTechnoPark in Belarus with its fully working transport models? Why not to refer to independent technology related articles like 1, 2, 3, and others?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by J35678 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)   striking sock contribution  — J35678 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * @J35678 It should be mentioned that link 1 above is to a SkyWay self-published site and can not be used as a verifiable source to prove anything. Site two is a press release in German of the appearance of SkyWay at a trade fair. A press release doesn't really communicate anything except that SkyWay presented it's technology somewhere. Site three is in French and describes the contract signed in the United Arab Emirates. None of these say anything in particular about the science or the companies. They are hardly objective opinions about anything. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete Comment [(from, don't !vote twice)] Before the beginning of the war of edits, the article was neutral and was devoted to string transport technology with a history of its development. The article had various sources: - explicitly declares an unsuccessful attempt to develop transport in the Ozeri and carries a negative. This information has nothing to do with advertising. - is an official document of the Russian government. Conclusion MIIT - an official source, one of the main critics of the project. Sources from 12 to 15 (Notes and reference) of the old version of the article - the fact of work in the beginning of the construction of the park.


 * Thus, the article “String Transport” was not advertising, but informational. Before the changes, it contained both positive and negative sources. Since the publication of 2017, a lot has happened. Of course, this should be reflected in the editing of the article, but the changes should be objective. In connection with the vandalism of users, , I consider the only right decision to delete the article and temporarily block this topic. WP:ABAN, WP:TBANG The publication, of course, demanded improvement, but not its full change. Definitely - DELETE. Until the attack stops. WP:G10  -- Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC) — Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - summary of objections@Leonid Kotvitsky and others - Claims that the old version of the article was 'informational' are misguided and the accusations of vandalism are unfounded:
 * Observe the many dubious sources in Kovitsky's 'String Transport' link - this is exactly why the article was changed in the first place;
 * Note also that the inclusion of only 'some' verifiable 'negative' links is particularly misleading because it falsely legitimizes the questionable ones;
 * View the contents of the talk page for an accurate retelling of genuine concerns voiced and argued by the accused 'vandals';
 * SPAs making unfounded accusations against people who are trying to ensure that Wikipedia is a misinformation-free resource are damaging and unnecessary;
 * See the SkyWay group talk page for translations, debate and summaries of verifiable sources;
 * Please note that users were at all times encouraged to post valid scientific references to improve the article on the talk page;
 * Note also that new verifiable resources have been added since this deletion request was made, particularly in reaction to criticism of justification of notability through primary sources, i.e. including verifiable resources for primary ones like this
 * Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is a material amount of WP:SPA activity on this AfD.  Keep the comments shorter and specific, as it is very (very) hard to follow. Britishfinance (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I predicted from the beginning. Except now the comments are bordering on WP:ADVOCACY from both sides and becoming too confusing with the WP:WALLOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep but make the scope of the article both about the concept/technology, as well as the methods being used to finance it. The article was initially about the concept and was later renamed and somehow in the midst of all this chaotic editing, the scope of the article has changed. Actually, what is notable here is the "concept and the ensuing controversy over its feasibility, safety and financial issues". There has been coverage in multiple countries such as India, , UAE , . , Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania . The concept seems to have been showcased in multiple transport related events such as . MOUs with some governments have been signed which have resulted in controversy and warnings by some financial regulators. I think this is fair enough for an article. I am curios why so many sockpuppets are trying to get this article deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify you are not advocating keeping the current page, but are saying to keep the current content under a different name correct?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous versions of the article did describe the technology in depth, but it was almost entirely primary-sourced to Skyway. The sources you mentioned barely touch on what the concept actually is, with vague statements such as "Skyway Technologies Co. from Belarus presented its vision of an elevated rail system that can also run a tram beneath it." I agree that we could include more about the concept, but I haven't seen any independent sources that could match the previous level of detail.
 * The transport-related events seem to be the type of industry trade show where interested parties can rent a booth and give a demonstration of their product. I don't see anything that rises above routine coverage of such an event. –dlthewave ☎ 22:15, 7 March 2019 (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.