Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniModal/proposed


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus, but this is a temporary proposed page, so please note that it should not be kept like this for long. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

UniModal/proposed
This is a copy of Personal rapid transit/UniModal (see deletion debate, endorsed at WP:DRV) which has been worked on to try to fix the major problems with that article. In my view the fundamental problem remains that this does not exist. It is a concept for personal rapid transit (PRT), which is in turn a concept for a mode of transit. No system of this scale or with many of these parameters has even been prototyped, and the system as described does not exist even in mockup form. To my mind this is a fork of PRT without the balancing effect of the few real-world trials which have been undertaken. There is no evidence presented that the proponent of this system is viewed as sufficiently influential as to make implementation a realistic prospect in the short to medium term, as the UniModal website acknowledged before the damaging admission was removed, "there ain't no such thing" - but Malewicki is certainly pitching hard for money and I guess this article helps him to establish credibility. The article starts by saying this proposal is different from other forms of PRT, but that is a rather naughty claim since at present there pretty much are no other forms. Two small-scale trials of systems nothing like this are planned, one long-term small scale trial ran for a while and was wound up, another small scale trial is no longer considered PRT due to its having increased the capacity to 12 passengers per pod, and so on. Fan fiction is all very well, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. This subject is best covered (as it already is) in personal rapid transit. Take a look at those running costs! Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No patents attached + no contracts awarded = speculation. Delete. Vizjim 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete – any useful information can be integrated with personal rapid transit – Gurch 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - sadly, given the amount of love and attention which has been lavished on the article. The article is very readable, but I feel that without a concrete plan to actually make the system, the system itself fails on notability. As an untested concept with niche interest on WP, the article cannot sustain NPOV over time. The merge with PRT was severe, but allows the section on Unimodal to be expanded with extra references as these become available, and also provides a wider audience within WP. If it is built (almost certainly in a modified form), WP will be a good place to record this fact and provide a neutral analysis, and it will no doubt get a good article of its own. Stephen B Streater 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - First: Malewicki has not been involved in editing this article, so the statement that "this article helps him to establish credibility" is misleading and irrelevant. Second: SkyTran is a novel variation of PRT with several important differences from most other PRT designs (i.e. very small vehicles, high speed, vehicles suspended below the track, maglev, ADA compliance provided via an external mechanism). Third: the claims about cost are clearly speculative, but can easily be qualified by a statement that those cost projections rely on untested concepts. Fourth: on the notability debate, SkyTran is certainly not a household word, but (a) the design has been out there for several years now, (b) Malewicki has presented technical papers on it, and (c) it's even received some treatment in the mainstream media (i.e. New York Times Magazine, Popular Science). I think SkyTran, even as an unproven design concept, merits a small article. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - First of all, the article is not a copy of anything. It is a very scaled down version of the aformentioned article that was at Personal rapid transit/UniModal. JzG's points seem quite irrelevant, as Malewiki has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Although I disagree with Stephen Streater, he brings up *valid* points. However, the article (as a subpage) is meant to be a proposal, not an actual page (I hope thats obvious). I think that SkyTran has received enough media recognition to at least be its own very small page. I've tried to scale it down, but others are welcome to scale further. Fresheneesz 10:48, 21 May 2006 (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.