Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniModal (2nd nomination)

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 merge/redirect to SkyTran. Useful and well-sourced content can be merged from the page history into the SkyTran article. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UniModal

Originally considered here, but then speedily deleted a couple of years later before winding up at deletion review, see here. Relisted here. Please consider the material presented in the DRV before commenting. Myself, abstain. Splash - tk 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the product under development is notable (Skytran), this does not confer sufficient notability on the company to warrant an individual article per WP:COMPANY. Merge relevant content to Skytran and delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this was speedied, the SkyTran article was created independently. There is no need for both UniModal and SkyTran, IMO. SkyTran is the PRT design, UniModal is the company created to develop it. I prefer SkyTran, and now that we have access to the speedied UniModal page, I suggest it be merged into SkyTran, and UniModal can then redirect there. ATren (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SkyTran. This topic is notable enough to warrant one small article, but not two; and "Skytran" is the name by which this is better known. Skybum (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect into SkyTran. All sources on the article except the company website are talking about Skytran and not about the company itself, so it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Re-use the sources on the SkyTran article --Enric Naval (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE - I've rolled back UniModal to an edit before JJDoorjam messed it up, because thats really what he did. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SkyTran. It is a notable, and *very* sourced idea. People have brought up the fact that it doesn't have a working system - but this doesn't mean *any* of us would even think about deleting articles like space elevator, starship enterprise, or invisibility cloak. Furthermore, the article is not an advertisement, nor does it look like one. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SkyTran and then delete Unimodal, which can be redirected to SkyTran. With fewer articles about this topic, it will be easier to maintain. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that if the content is merged, the article cannot be deleted as it's necessary to preserve the history for the GFDL. If merged, then the current article can be turned into a redirect, but not deleted before the redirect is created. -- Kesh (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the relevant material should be rewritten from the original sources. I sense that UniModal is not notable enough in itself to keep, and keeping it on a technicality is not ideal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article isn't actually about UniModal, it's written about the SkyTran system. UniModal gets the barest mention in the intro, and that's it. There's really nothing here that needs merged to SkyTran, so an outright delete is appropriate. -- Kesh (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a lot of information there that needs to be merged into SkyTran, since the Unimodal article is really about SkyTran. The fact that Unimodal is only mentioned in the intro is a reason to merge, not a reason to delete. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "need" to be merged. It can be rewritten into the SkyTran article from the original sources. Merging in this case is really overkill. -- Kesh (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In fact, if the consensus is to delete, I would ask if the page can be made available (temporarily userfy to me?) and I will happily do the content merge manually Fritzpoll (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to nitpick over that, but I don't see why a merge (for history's sake) is more overkill than copy and paste merging.. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SkyTran. While I know nothing of the subject, some of the content of this article looks better than that one. At the end of doing the merge, the present article should be left as a redirect, in accordance with standard practice.
Delete and then redirect the page to Unimodal function. The SkyTran article already contains everything of relevance in the UniModal article. (Full, though perhaps irrelevant, disclosure: I deleted ~~SkyTran~~ UniModal about a month ago, which led to the DRV that led to this AFD.) JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you deleted UniModal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake! You're right; I corrected above. JDoorjam JDiscourse 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unimodal already redirects to Unimodal function. UniModal has a capital M, so that can redirect to SkyTran without affecting the Unimodal redirect. ATren (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete the industrial equivalent of vaporware - this socalled train system doesn't really exist in any meangful formCinnamon colbert (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and direct unimodal to a disambiguation page. Alternatively, use the material to rewrite Skytran to actually be meaningful again. The SkyTran article has been butchered to the point where the reader can't possibly get an accurate idea what the article is about. Even the references to the inductrack passive levitation system have been removed. I submit that SkyTran is an interesting idea, certainly much more feasible than a space elevator or terraforming Venus. I can't possibly understand the motivation behind the drive on the part of a few users to make SkyTran-related articles all but gone. Jeremija81 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is an article on Skytran, the article should mention that it is supposed to be built with robots-[1] Skytran's supposed inventor gave up on it-[2]... but that won't stop Skytran's promoters... they're going to be at the Ithaca Podcar Conference in September- [3]Avidor (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question If Unimodal is the company that is developing Skytran, does it have a business address? This is the best I could find [4]...but, it appears to be a residential address...Avidor (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Avidor is a single purpose account. He has been here more than two years, his edits are exclusively on the articles related to PRT and its supporters. He is associated with the lightrailnow.org website, a pro-rail website underwritten by rail construction interests - of course, rail construction would be directly threatened by proliferation of PRT. Avidor has also maintained an extensive anti-PRT website for over 5 years now, and has called PRT a "fraud", a "hoax", a "scam" and a "flim flam" hundreds (thousands?) of times in forums across the Internet (frequently using multiple aliases to do so), though he has never presented a single piece of evidence to substantiate these claims.

Disclaimer: I know all this because I watch his anti-PRT writings, and debunk his statements on my blog. There is also another blog which does the same. ATren (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, UniModal is awaiting funding to proceed, so it is very likely that they are in hibernation mode and do not maintain an office. This is not unusual for startups. ATren (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, please be civil. You just spent a paragraph attacking his character before spending a sentence agreeing with his findings. Let's keep this about the article and about Wikipedia, not about conflicts between personalities elsewhere on the internet. JDoorjam JDiscourse 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk. In short, it is not uncivil to point out when an editor returns from a 9 month break to vote in a deletion debate, especially when that editor has only ever edited articles dealing with the topic of the deletion. Also, I can't see how stating verifiable fact can be construed as an attack on character. See your talk page for details (including evidence to back all my statements). ATren (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.