Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal

This is an article about a hypothetical proposed system of Personal Rapid Transit, which includes in much less critical form a lot of data discussed in the (much edit-warred) parent article. I'm not sure if we have a project where it could go, but this is not, I would say, it - it's pretty close to 100% speculation for a contentious and unproven transportation system, with as yet no full-scale implementations from any manufacturer, let alone anyting of the scale, speed and technical features described here. Just zis Guy you know? 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

::Status of Skytran[http://www.skytran.net/04Technical/pod14.htm]

"Skytran" is just a concept... and a silly one too. Avidor 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Based on the system not existing yet and with no plans for it to happen, Merge what can be salvaged (for example info on the grid spacing theory) with the parent and Delete the rest. Don't leave a redirect because articles are not supposed to have slashes, I thought. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd second that. There seems to be some content worth merging with the parent Lurker 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:*Happy to do that if you could point out what is verifiable and would not lend undue weight to the treatment of a hypothetical and currently politically contentious mode of urban transport (remembering that the entire idea is essentially unproven outside of very small-scale technical trials). Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Picture of the guideway-extruding ROBOT [http://www.skytran.net/old/images/Pod/Track%20Former%20.GIF]

Okay, is that enough evidence to declare PRT a total joke? Why aren't the other so-called PRT companies condemning Skytran for being such a joke and giving the rest of them a bad name? Why haven't the anonymous PRT proponents mentioned that Skytran is supposed to be built by robots? You can't get sillier than this statement "The light weight per foot of the track design also allows the use of a semi-automated track forming manufacturing robot (much simpler than the Robosaurus machine)." Here's the Robosaurus[http://www.robosaurus.com/]

• Note that Skytran and Robosaurus were invented by the same person... I don't think the design calls for giant dinosaurs to assemble the tracks. Yes, it's unproven, but the company does exist, and has some patents as well. I'm not clear on why the Unimodal page was removed originally, but it makes sense to me to have a Skytran/Unimodal page, and a link from the Personal Rapid Transit page linking to it. Basically, if I Google the topic I'd like to see something about it on Wikipedia. Cheers, --EricTalevich 05:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrator, it's time to declare this and other PRT pages a bad joke and delete them.Avidor 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

::Avidor, lengthy quotes and extraneous comments make this talk page hard to read.

::As for the merge, I think I might agree with that. I was going to argue against merging too, citing that the article had lots of contributors etc, but looking back through the history, it seems that *I* wrote just about half that page. I was just trying to impart my knowlege about the system to others.

::Anyway, I think that (since SkyTran is a proposal that is interesting enough to be one of the very few PRT proposals with its own page) SkyTran should either keep its own page in a stripped down fasion - or such a strip down can be put on the PRT page. However, I think that it would be out of place to have a description of a single PRT proposal on the PRT page, and it would need descriptions of other ones as well.

::I do *not* think that Skytran should be deleted entirely - as Ken Avidor wants. Avidor has decried the censorship of his vandalism, but now wants to censor entire pages. The page should be condensed, not deleted. Fresheneesz 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Also, on the topic of undue weight: an article itself does not place undue weight on anything, the concept of undue weight is about over-represented information INSIDE an article. Having an article about skytran does not give PRT proposals undue weight. You misunderstand the policy JzG. Fresheneesz 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

::::It's fancruft, plain and simple. Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

SkyTran has existed for at least 10 years, and its roots extend back to maybe 1990. It was incorporated as a business once, for a short time. UniModal began a few years ago. It is incorporated as a business now. Both efforts are closely related, sharing several of the same persons. The SkyTran/UniModal system is unique in being very lightweight, relative to many other proposed PRT implementations. From these perspectives, as long as an article is not excessively one-sided, or factually incorrect, then it should be acceptable, except where it duplicates information in the general PRT article; such information should be moved from the SkyTran/UniModal article and merged into the general PRT article. Thank you. 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

::If you (JzG) had even skimmed the page relating to "fancruft" here, it says that it does not a "plain and simple" meaning - its "hotly debated" the article says. Not only that, the article mentioned that "fancruft" is mostly said to describe fictional subjects like fictional universes. You as an administrater should be more careful in using words like that.

::Unimodal is a *real company* as noted by the above post. Thus it isn't just fiction. The ideas the company proposes are also not fictional ideas. Those ideas use *real* technology that is in fact available "now" (to the chagrin of Avidor who apparently thinks that they mean SkyTran is here now).

:: I have changed my mind from my previous post - placing SkyTran's info on the PRT would indeed put "undue weight" on that subject, and so it should be kept as a separate page. Not only that, but I'm thinking about moving it back to its original title as simply "Unimodal" - but I can't decide if there is benefit to doing that (as long as the words "skytran" and "unimodal" link there). Fresheneesz 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft? How about fraud? Millions of dollars worth of shares have been sold by these phony PRT "companies". They have also received millions of $ in public funding...all wasted. Wikipedia shouldn't help the PRT scam artists anymore.Avidor 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::AVIDOR, that is your opinion, and you've said it countless times on wikipedia. OBVIOUSLY, if people are buying shares in these companies, they think its a good idea. You're arguments are unsound, and they DO NOT belong on the "articles for deletion" discussion page. Make what you say RELEVANT. I'm sick of seeing IRRELEVANT comments from you. While they might be valid - KEEP THEM IN APPLICABLE PLACES. Thanks. Fresheneesz 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::In a post above, Wiki editor Avidor states: "How about fraud? Millions of dollars worth of shares have been sold by these phony PRT "companies". They have also received millions of $ in public funding...all wasted. Wikipedia shouldn't help the PRT scam artists anymore." This is a misrepresentation, that verges on being libelous. In the case of SkyTran/UniModal, for both businesses, it is a matter of public record that not even one share was ever sold, and no public funding was ever received. Clearly, as businesses, both firms are failures, so far. Lack of success is not the same as fraud. 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.235.189 (talk • contribs)

:::I was referring not just to Skytran. PRT companies including "Skytran" [http://www.skytran.net/03Economics/s11.htm] mention public and/or private investment on their websites. Whether they are successful in getting the money is another matter. Taxi 2000 has sold shares, for instance...worthless now that Taxi 2000 can't get the government to fund its test facility.

:::It is very clear that article is a puff piece for a ridiculous PRT "company". This company is at best a clever and elaborate internet deception... the claim that Skytran is 15 times less expensive than light rail amounts clearly an attempt to monkey-wrench the public decision-making process involving transportation. Wikipedia should not assist the cyberspace sabotage of the public planning process of communities like mine. In a matter this crucial to taxpayers and investors, Wikipedia should not allow anonymous editors to create that deception. Wikipedia should not allow any company... particularly a phony company an opportunity to promote itself in this manner.Avidor 12:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::I'm gonna have to ask you for a source on that one - and yes I mean a reputable source, not some internet blog. You also seem to misunderstand what wikipedia is - and it always allows anons to edit pages. I'm just going to stop responding to comments like this that basically say "PRT IS A SCAM, GET IT AWAY, KILL IT NOW!" - its just childish. Fresheneesz 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to skeptics like myself to prove a negative...that Skytran, for example doesn't exist when there is no credible evidence to the contrary ..or even that this "company" is making any effort to build a PRT system. In fact, the inventor himself states on his website that he doesn't have sufficient energy to pursue the creation of Skytran. I suggest that instead of insulting me, bowdlerizing my comments and deleting my posts, that PRT proponents like "Fresheneez" make an effort to prove that these PRT companies really are "going concerns" It wouldn't be hard to do. For instance, they could ask the officers of these companies to send proof that they are more than just flashy Photoshoped visuals on the internet.... good luck.Avidor 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::: No, it is up to you. I can prove the company exists by citing its webite, and noting all the coverage about it you so graciously throw upon us. SkyTran does not exist, but the company Unimodal does, and its ideas for SkyTran also exist - the fact that the ideas exist is something not even you could refute.

::: What sort of proof would you want Avidor, I have personally talked to a few of these "officers" and I could get whatever evidence you're thinking of - unless its ridiculous (which I suspect it is).

::: Also, it matters NOT IN THE LEAST whether these companies are "growing concerns" - things on wikipedia need not be. Your points are once again irrelevant. And I am attacking your judgement and your arguments - not you as a person. Your conduct on wikipedia is not what I would consider exemplary, and thus don't be surprised if people sink to your level. Fresheneesz 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote.

I think that more than 5 votes should be counted here before any action is taken (neither removing deletion proposal tag, nor actual deletion). Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- Disagree with deletion, the page needs work, but it contains useful information on a company some would find interesting. Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

-DISAGREE with deletion. The Malewicki quote under "Current Status of Skytran" was made as early as the year 2000[http://web.archive.org/web/20000609101457/www.skytran.net/04Technical/pod14.htm]. Since the company has been active since then, the quote is historical and not "current".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.144.141 (talk • contribs)

-Disagree with deletion. Fix the problems with the page quality. Wiki pages exist to explain things in ways that help readers make up their own minds. Wiki editors are not censors who do people's thinking for them. 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.235.189 (talk • contribs)

-Disagree with deletion. However, I strongly suggest a more clear Wikipedia strategy on how to handle company and product information. Basically I think Wikipedia should contain a lof of information about the ideas behind systems and products, not the products themselves. For example a "car" or "automobile" is much more relevant than a "Ford", "Volvo" or "Toyota". The "car" section should the have links to known homepages of car makers over the world. Similary, I suggest that the emphasis should be put on "PRT", "Podcars" etc. in this case, and that the "Unimodal" information should be shorter and maybe connected to the inventor instead (Douglas Malewicki). However, I stronly disagree with deleting the entire entry, as all products, regardless of status, is a result of human effort and therefore is of interest now and later for various reasons - even if the product never sees the ligh of the day. Christer Lindström, IST (www.podcar.org) Sweden

-Disagree with deletion. The comment that because some PRT companies are frauds, therefor Unimodal and Skytran are probably a fraud is libelous. I just ran for City Council in Scottsdale Arizona, and my sole platform plank was that Scottsdale should seriously consider SkyTran or a similar PRT system. Obviously I don't think it's a fraud. (see http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/loomisforcouncil.htm ) I did not win a seat on the council, but I did not come in last, either. At any rate, this is fascinating stuff and deserves an entry.

-Disagree with deletion. SkyTran is a legitimate engineering project that has been granted USA Utility and Design Patents and is now in the early prototyping stages. 9:30 PM PST, April 18, 2006.

-Disagree with deletion. I have been aquainted with Skytran/Unimodal for ,ore then 4 years. It is a ligitmate concept that has a solid theoretical basis. 10:25 pm PDT April 18, 2006

-Disagree with deletion. The idea looks quite fleshed-out to me; I see useful/interesting information in this page. But as Christer mentioned above, it may be worthwhile to refactor the Personal Rapid Transit group of pages. --EricTalevich 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

DISAGREE with deletion. The unimodal skytran idea has been in published form for more than five years. The concept has been endorsed by Professor Jerry Schneider, in an issue of I.D. Magazine (International Design), and in Scientific American, January 2000. There seems to be one particular vocal individual who for whatever reason is against even the idea of modal/skytran in Wiki. The term "mode" as dictionary defined can mean one way of doing something, such as in transportation, or logical. Obviously that would apply here with this concept. Practical or not, feasible or not, this is a company that has an idea and patented invention that regardless of its current status of development or implementation does exist and should remain on Wiki. Just because a person does not like the concept, does not warrant the entry to be deleted. They just need to find something else better to do and let ideas like unimodal/skytran be available for others to read and learn about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.36.138 (talk • contribs)

: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.