Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Chariot

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 delete. While there are reliable sources in the article, consensus is, that they fail to establish the subject's notability, mainly because they are insufficiently removed from the subject to be considered independent enough.

Merges were proposed by both the nom and another editor but no discussion on this happened. If someone wants to merge parts of the article, leave me a message and I'll provide a copy of the article to you. So Why 15:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Chariot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a WP:NOTNEWS situation to me. It's a crowd-funding campaign for a travel tube ala Futurama. While there have been a lot of news reports about this (with flashy headlines suggesting it already exists), it's not clear that it's going to go anywhere (excuse the pun). Perhaps it could be merged into the Matthew Modine article since he is the president of the company. ... discospinster _talk 19:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@captainraju, @discospinster -- I agree that the company is all flash. If you look at its competitor Hyperloop Transportation Technologies you will discover that it too is an "all hype, all the time" company. The only thing they manufacture is videos. I believe Hyper Chariot is noteworthy BECAUSE of its publicity. There's a possibility that something DOES happen. I make no predictions. Rhadow (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not the technology is feasible, the fact is that the article meets the criteria for inclusion, namely a couple of relevant sources Katharine908 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has yet to become a noteworthy subject, and the article has a puff piece, promotional feel to it.TH1980 (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a number of RS for this technology/company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- way WP:TOOSOON; with $4,700 in funding, it's hard to assume notability. The rest is trivia and promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per K.e.coffman's point, this company is a startup with very limited reach. Very likely nothing would be known about it if not for the hyperloop hype. Some day it may meet WP:NOTE, but not today.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references suggest this isn't a company yet, merely promotional hype for a crowd-funding campaign. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all – My pride of authorship aside, I suggest that the decision on the Hyper Chariot article needs to be based on WP’s established guidelines for notability. We would be well served not to make our decision based on the merits of the subject company. That’s a value judgement. Hyper Chariot may well be a flash in the pan exercise in self-promotion. The article is not a puff piece. I included evidence commercial and technical imperfection, to which I expect others to add. It includes a journal article. A successful but low-dollar performance in a crowdfunding effort is a relevant indicator. It tells about the company; it’s not sufficient reason to dump the article.

Notability: The subject attracted the attention of all the London tabloids, Fox, and various tech publications (29 by my count) worldwide. This was all in its first month of public operation. Is that notable? Yes. Is it ongoing? First, that’s not a requirement. Second, if it isn’t, it is still significant insofar as it it’s a reflection of an industry full of dreamers, as well as builders.

Specific to trains-in-tubes, Elon Musk built a test track in California: physical accomplishment. Hyperloop One built a demo system in Nevada: another physical accomplishment. ET3: plans, papers, and press releases only. HTT: seminars and videos only. TransPod: three offices, no product. Arrivo: another startup, plans only. By the time we are done, the floor will be littered with the remains of companies that tried and failed. The story of those efforts, I believe, belong in an encyclopedia that should outlive all of us. In the two days since this discussion started, two new companies were added to the Hyperloop page. There is something going on here. It needs to be documented.

Just my two cents.Rhadow (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to ET3 Global Alliance which seems related but has a significantly longer history, or delete if that's not judged appropriate. This article is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a newspaper: a brief flurry of stories, with no indication anyone will remember it in 6 months time. Hyperloop is probably nonsense too but Musk has been talking about it for much longer and it's received much more press - those are the relevant criteria, not the plausibility of the science. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable company, it is vaporware. The only decent source, an article in Journal of Modern Transportation, does not mention the company and was published before the company was founded. An article about the founder's failed political efforts does not mention this company. A YouTube video claims that one of the founders is a psychic. Breathless reprints of press releases by credulous, sensationalistic London tabloids do not confer notability on a company that has raised much less funding than I have personally earned in the last ten days. This venture is not notable. It is a publicity stunt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 20 July 2017 (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.