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. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garrow Verticopter

[edit]
Garrow Verticopter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a project to build a new type of aircraft. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish notability because the only source is the designer's own page. A Google search for "verticopter" yields nothing that meets the criteria of a reliable source let alone anything that would satisfy the draft notability guidelines for aircraft. I therefore reluctantly conclude that we should delete the article. -- Rlandmann (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Adding to the above, how is this article different from the existing article on the Garrett STAMP. Also, on a Positive note the Entry for the Verticopter has existed on the List of VTOL aircraft page since Feb - 2008 (About 2 years now) Nausher (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2010 (PST)
Comment -- thanks for finding those links. Unfortunately, the piece in Vertical is a simple regurgitation of Garrow's own press release ([1] and [2]) which to me does not seem to be a strong indication of notability. I couldn't access the Frost & Sullivan article; but since they're a consultancy firm and their piece is dated shortly after the others, I wonder if it's the same material once again? For this to be a notable project, I'd expect to find independent coverage by the likes of Jane's, AW&ST, Flight International or even the EAA, but there doesn't seem to be anything out there. It's a relatively new project though -- it would be worth checking the latest couple of All the World's Aircraft.
"Other stuff exists" is never a good argument to bring to these discussions; but the primary difference between the Garrett STAMP and the Verticopter is that the STAMP actually existed and was actually flown (however fleetingly). Moreover, Garrett was a notable aerospace manufacturer in their own right. Failed projects or projects in development by notable manufacturers tend to be more notable than those of private individuals; if Bell or Sikorsky were developing the Verticopter, it would receive considerably more press coverage! For example, as short-lived as the STAMP was, nearly 40 years later it's trivially easy to find coverage from Popular Science and Flight International. I bet that back in the day, Jane's covered it as well; especially since it was a military project.
Once the Verticopter actually exists in some form other than computer games and radio-control models, it will almost certainly be notable enough for an article. Furthermore, once it really does exist, you could expect the members of WikiProject Aircraft to be fighting hard for its inclusion if the question ever came up. We tend to be pretty inclusionist!
Finally, I'm sorry that you feel discouraged. If you're interested in writing about aircraft, we have an absolutely huge list of real aircraft that still need documenting or verifying. Please join in! We could really do with your help :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At Rlandmann's request, I did a little research to try and find a RS, and these are my results- A search of the Jane's website turned up nothing, and I have access to the full Transport library. Neither Garrow nor Verticopter has any hits. The AIAA journals/conference proceedings turned up nothing, nor did a search of the CSA Illumina Aerospace & High Technology Database. Finally, a search of the ProQuest Military (mostly engineering stuff, not just military) database turned up nothing as well. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Can this artcile then be moved to a list of Proposed or Experimental Aircraft?
E.g. - List of experimental aircraft Or I could create a listing but would like to check here first, before that's up for deletion. Nausher (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (PST).
Comment -- Well, to be included on that list, the aircraft still needs to be notable. From what others have said, and my own search (see above), the only references to this aircraft are press releases and/or regurgitations of the press release. In my mind that leaves with only self-published sources, which isn't enough to establish notability. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this material belonged anywhere, it wouldn't be on a list. It would overwhelm the other content. If the development project itself were notable (even if the aircraft hadn't flown yet), I'd suggest maybe mentioning it in the tiltrotor article. However, without any substantial indication that any reliable source considers this a notable project yet, I just don't think it rates a mention at all. If the article is deleted, we should also remove the reference from the List of VTOL aircraft. I think that a List of proposed aircraft would be problematic from a WP:CRYSTAL point of view, but even if such a list existed, without reliable sources to indicate its notability, the Verticopter still wouldn't qualify for a place on that list either. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2010 (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.
More