Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FSC-1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FSC-1[edit]
Basically an advertisement for a vaporware product, complete with price tag. 42 Google hits, some of which are Wikimirrors. FCYTravis 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is actually a fine looking article if you remove the advertisment sounding prose. My main concern is that the images on the article (The ones that make it even passable) are probably incorrectly marked for copyright info. SomeStranger(t|c) 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertisement, possible hoax since the product is not available (still working with the FAA on those pesky clearances?). Lack of citations look like vanity article, particularly since contributor MLabiche has an oddly similar name to the company (LaBiche) and has only contributed to this article. Tychocat 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article definetly reads like an advertisement, and I doubt the car even exists. You have to admit though, the car does look somewhat humorous... =D --ApolloBoy 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a self promo... shouldn't this be under speedy deletion, ie vandalism. please emove all links to this article (which were created by the vendor, LaBiche, additionally would someone ban LaBiche? Thanks, =D --chorattil 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but the product itself, if it is ever built, might be notable. - Richardcavell 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly would be. But unlike Duke Nukem Forever, this nonexistent product is not in and of itself worthy of an article at this point. FCYTravis 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT Delete The FSC-1 vehicle is real and as close to a Flying Car as you will ever see today. If fact, Popular Science and 60 Minutes are doing articles on this vehicle. The company, LaBiche Aerospace is showing vehicle models at Oshkosh in July 2006. MLaBiche did not put the price tag in the Wiki article, it was someone named Anders. The Wiki article as entered by LaBiche is true and accurate. The vehicle exist and if you remove this article, it would be a dis-service to the wiki community. Check out the News section at www.labicheaerospace.com for the actual latest info. Not these "Nay-saying" people who haven't got a clue. If you remove this article, you have to remove Moller, Terrefugia, Volutee and others. None of these people have a real flying car, just an airplane, teathered pilot-less vehicles, etc. --Mlabiche 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And Moller's vehicle is a Flying Car because he has a BIG MODEL and calls it a SkyCar? I can go sit in my garage and say I'm a car all day long, but that doesn't make me a car.--Mlabiche 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't have the fun IP tools that some have, but it seems to me the top anonymous argument comes from Houston, Texas, wherefore is LaBiche Aerospace. Interestingly, their website lists a telephone number which Google says actually belongs to an Eagle Engineering, whose business coincidentally enough is computer simulations. My vote would remain delete, and you can repost the story when the FSC-1 becomes notable, e.g., real. Tychocat 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Eagle Engineers is one of my companies that specializes in Oil & Gas Industry. For a list of other companies see www.labiche.ws. I have to say that it is sad that we live in a dark time when skepticism and sarcasm is more valued than honesty, integrity, and optimism.--Mlabiche 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First off, full disclosure, for sock-puppeting purposes. I fully admit that I am affiliated with the FSC-1 vehicle. I have worked for several years on the vehicle with the vehicle’s creator, and know of its existence in Houston, TX first-hand. In fact, I’m the one that encouraged MLabiche to create the article in question here in the first place.
That being said, I have several comments to bring to the table. Firstly, self-promotion is not the motivation for the article’s creation. This article actually stemmed from our discussion of the pre-existing Flying Car article. Before MLabiche or I made any modifications to the Flying Car article, it incorrectly discussed Personal Air Vehicles (PAVs) and Roadable Aircraft (RAs) in the same breath. When, in actuality, RAs are an entirely separate group of vehicle from PAVs, with their own set of design goals and challenges not necessarily met by all other PAVs. So we set about differentiating Flying Cars/ RAs and their increased number of capabilities from that of PAVs in said article.
We also took notice that the Moller “Skycar” [sic] was predominantly over-represented in the Flying Car article. A disturbing fact, since the Moller vehicle is neither a flying car, nor is it a PAV. It is a Powered Lift VTOL aircraft that has the same road-going and door-to-door capabilities of a Cessna 172. It has zero merit as a Roadable Vehicle. So MLabiche and myself decided to rewrite the Flying Car article under more clearly defined terms, in hopes of eradicating this confusion of the two types of vehicle (PAV vs. RA).
We felt this change would also necessitate the creation of an article about our own vehicle, in order to show the general public that there are other options beyond the “Skycar” [sic] coming to market that meet the actual definition of a RA. We will be at Oshkosh in a month, and we will be generating the kind of “verifiable” ink Wikipedia finds so factual quite soon. And just because we haven’t been working on an aircraft for over 40 years, and sunk over $200 million of our own and many other people’s dollars into it, and generated sensational press over an SEC fraud scandal, doesn’t mean we’re making this up. Also, per the comment about “those pesky FAA clearances”, our vehicle faces only standard regulatory hurdles passed by hundreds of small aircraft manufacturers when compared to that of the poor “Skycar” [sic]. Can you imagine what your neighbor taking off in an 8 engine VTOL jet aircraft would sound like at 7 in the morning as he heads to work? It would sound a lot like an 8 engine jet aircraft taking off in your bedroom. i.e. LOUD This is not something the FAA is about to clear for any populated areas any time soon. Therefore, the misleading idea that you will be seeing these vehicles parked in garages any day now is quite silly, and detrimental to the general public’s concept of “Flying Cars”.
Anyhow, I understand that even photos of our vehicle will be unconvincing, so we will respect your decision. We will wait a month or so, and once enough press has been generated, we’ll revive the article. Until then, thank you for your time and consideration.Danny 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I think you have a very good grasp of the issue, Danny. Once there are some verifiable external sources available that discuss the FSC-1, such as an article in the Experimental Aircraft Association magazine, as might be gotten at Oshkosh, I think clearly this can be revisited and a neutral, dispassionate article written on the aircraft. The problem is that right now, all we have is speculation and your company's claims - which, while undoubtedly made in good faith, cannot be taken at face value by a dispassionate encyclopedia. FCYTravis 21:25, 20 June 2006 (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.