Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The hover car

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hover car

Implicitly contested prod. Unreferenced article about a concept vehicle, notability unasserted. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hovercar which covers this topic as a futuristic, science fictional concept. If this particular concept vehicle is notable, it can be mentioned there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scoff scoff The concept is worth a mention in the hovercar article, but this is essentially a website by someone who has seems to have no formal training in engineering, chemistry, physics or other science necessary in realizing the concept, nor any financial backing. I can't tell whether the eight jet packs are supposed to run for two hours on 24 gallons of peroxide and hydrogen gas apiece (192 gallons), or 24 gallons in total, but historically, those jet packs that we've seen in the past use up their entire supply of fuel in less than a minute in order to sustain flight. If you've invented a hydrogen fuel delivery system that can operate that efficiently, don't burn it up on the thrust necessary to raise a heavy car off the ground -- use it to move the car on the road. You'll become a billionaire, after which you can spend the money necessary for the hover car. No need to thank me for the tip. Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for "the hover car"+"noel taylor" yields 3 hits: a blog and two other sites, neither of which would be considered reliable sources. The same terms applied to Google News, Books, and Scholar yield nothing. Believing this may be notable, I was looking for anything I could to support keeping, and I could find nothing, so therefore, I must support deletion. Sebwite (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 23:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable non-invention. William Avery (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with hovercar, but be selective in what information is actually transferred. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam - the article is structured as an intro to the link to what is presumably the author's own web site. No WP:RS and therefore no WP:N. The web site reads like either a school report or a hoax because it claims it "reduces global warming" (implying reduction of CO2 and methane) while considering possible choices of fuels which all produce CO2 when burned. Note that powered lift is the most energy-intensive and least fuel-efficient method of flight. Also note that it isn't an invention if it hasn't been built and shown to work. May still be a candidate for speedy deletion under G11. Ikluft (talk) 05:34, 18 September 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.