Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyblazer 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 keep, article has been salvaged. Sr13 01:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Skyblazer Flying Car

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advert by Robin Haynes for his plans to develop a flying car. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth 05:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait - until User:Robin Haynes references the article. If he cannot, delete - Hirohisat 06:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait - I agree, the page was created a few hours ago and may not be completed yet. -Andrew4010 06:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising and speculation.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete advertisement, speculation, unreferencable from properly independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promoting, crystal ball guff. Eusebeus 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it's intersting, but that's not a reason to keep. I agree with the above. Acalamari 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this project is quite well-known in the aviation world. Referencing will not be a problem --Rlandmann 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This will be the first commerically successful air car. Nay sayers are simply uninformed and unaware of the latest technological advances that enable such vehicles to become a practical reality. (USer:PTH44) — PTH44 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ""KEEP"" This is a documented project with verified plausability. References are now listed and verify everything written. No self promotion, only clear description of plans and progress. Current and actionable, not speculative-look at the website!Lovelilisa — Lovelilisa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Neutral, leaning Keep Some sources have been added since then ... add some more and I'll switch to keep. Blueboy96 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Enough sources have been added that this article is at least salvageable.  Dunno how much more reliable you can get than Business Week--though it's a shame two of the "keep" votes come from SPAs. Blueboy96 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough sources have now been added to attest to the project's veracity and notability, and COI/ad content removed. - BillCJ 23:04, 21 June 2007 (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.