Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LAPCAT

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 keep. Some participants noted the need to improve, and possibly move (rename) the article. --MCB 06:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LAPCAT

LAPCAT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Very speculative future project that in reality has very little chance of becoming real, no refs other than the company. IMHO, fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Given that it's an EU project, and the ESA/EU links meet WP:RS, I'm withdrawing the nom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• There are some outside refs, but a lot of the 397 Google hits I got for LAPCAT supersonic are reprints of what appears to be a press release, like this[1] Gizmo Watch article, which is making it really hard to find good sources (and that's made even harder by the fact that everyone and their dog... er, cat has picked up the word 'lapcat' and posted it in their blogs referring to their cute little Fluffy). However, the European Union[2] and ESA[3] are backing it, so that might confer some notability in the grand scheme of things. I suspect there's more reliable sources out there, so weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have you read those refs in detail? They use the same acronym, but neither reference Reaction Engines. I strongly suspect that these are two different things...a real feasability study by ESA, and a pie-in-the-sky proposal using the same name. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really pie in the sky, the basic physics is sound, the engineering is anyone's guess, but the economics is the real problem- would the vehicle get ROI?WolfKeeper 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look down the right hand side here there's the list of the organisations involved, including the Reaction Engines Limited. Basically they're throwing a bit of money at them to keep them alive, from what I've seen the system might well be economic- on paper it actually has very good range (much further than conventional jets) and can do so even at very high speeds, but it depends on the market, and the precooler tech is very new and honestly really nobody knows whether it would work in real-world flight conditions, it's only been tried in the lab at very small scale.WolfKeeper 01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Crystal ballery at work here. Either it needs more info on the theoretical and technical aspects along with more references to published papers etc or it needs binning as "pie in the sky" --WebHamster 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's precooled jet engines, they were proposed back in the 50s; and they're covered in jet engine.WolfKeeper 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Changed to Keep, but fix after checking a bit further. WebHamster has it right . EU and ESA might be backing research into the possibility of such a vehicle but the article is presenting it almost as a fait accompli. Moriori 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'd vote strong keep if it were longer, it might not be that well known, but it's only problem is it's size.--Yamakiri 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)This account was created 4 September 2007. note by administrator Hu12 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been speaking to my ex-wife have you? ;) --WebHamster 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

HOLD ON A SEC. We are voting on an article that will not survive in its present state regardless of the outcome of this AfD, because it needs serious editing. For a start, the name of the aircraft is A2, not Lapcat, so that is what should be stated in the intro, and that should be the title. I have given this article a badly needed onceover to remove pov/speculation. I suggest I delete the article we are voting on and create a new article called A2 with the following info (with a stub tag):

A2 is a hypothetical supersonic transport aircraft being researched by Reaction Engines Limited.^[1] under its Long-Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts and Technologies (LAPCAT) program. It is speculated it could fly from Brussels (Belgium) to Sydney (Australia) in 4.6 hours, ^[2] significantly reducing journey times across the globe. For A2 to attain and maintain such high speeds, Reaction Engines Limited would need to develop its newly designed concept engine called the Scimitar, to exploit the thermodynamic properties of liquid hydrogen. ^[3] The engine is theoretically capable of sustaining Mach 5 throughout flight with an effective exhaust velocity of 40,900 m/s. ^[4]

If anyone still feels so inclined, they can ad an Afd tag to it.. What say you? Moriori 22:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The title/name is not an issue, as it can easily be moved/changed. The other problems still exist, however. - BillCJ 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nononono. The article is currently incomplete in that LAPCAT is the EU research project to examine several different ways to build a supersonic transport. The A2 is just one proposal of one company involved in the project. There have already been published comparison as part of LAPCAT between the A2/Scimitar and a turborocket approach for example, the A2 seemed to do very well there.WolfKeeper 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nomination. If the project actually progresses to the point that there are multiple secondary sources, then it can be recreated. - BillCJ 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill, initial stubs very often do have probs with refs, but can evolve into useful articles. They can't of course, if they have been deleted, especially if the person who created the article becomes disillusioned and moves on elsewhere. What do you think we should do with the linked article Reaction Engines Limited? And thousands more like it in Wiki as a browse through Random article will reveal?

What I have suggested would end up with a factual, informative, properly titled article, with no pov/speculation and sporting a stub tag. It would invite a refs tag, but hardly an Afd tag. The suggestion would short circuit the whole process we are going through here which is inevitably going to end up with creation of a completely different article, like the stub I suggest above, even if we arrive at that different article through rewrite.

Notice that the person who listed this Afd said "Very speculative future project that in reality has very little chance of becoming real" (as well as concerns about refs). It's not a future project at all. The research is happening right now. Part of what is being researched is a hypothetical A2. Whether or not such a vehicle can/will ever be built is not the point. LAPCAT is researching such a vehicle (among other things) and that is knowledge suitable for inclusion in Wiki.. Moriori 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Even given what you state above, you haven't fixed WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, without which the article is just WP:OR or corporate spam, neither of which is permitted. I'll let AKRadecki address your points concerning the nomination. Trust me, he's not one to frivolously nominate for AFDs, and I have seen him fight for articles he felt were worth saving. - BillCJ 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A, stubs, even those failing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N now, can realise their potential provided they are not nuked. Why delete if they demonstrate potential to be developed? B, trust me I fully accept that AKRadecki does not edit frivolously, but even he can get things wrong like the rest of us. This most definitely is not a "Very speculative future project that in reality has very little chance of becoming real" as I have pointed out already. LAPCAT is demonstrably a current significant research project, and a hypothetical A2 aircraft is part of that research (as my suggested stub says). No-one is saying a super aircraft is being/will be built. Hey, look at me, I'm fighting for an article I voted to delete! Changing that vote. Moriori 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There verifiably is such a project, I've seen the press releases, and I expect we can find the funding lines. It's notable because there's millions of EUs involved in the project, and multiple companies, and because they've published papers and presumably will continue to do so. It's simply not corporate spam either.WolfKeeper 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the article is about an EU funded research project and hence is notable anyway, and the precooler technology is interesting in and of itself, and that technology is already mentioned in jet engine, supersonic transport, SABRE and Skylon so it's sensible to have an article here; and I suspect there will be more papers to reference when the research is finished so it's likely to grow. I don't think the technology is quite as speculative as people seem to assume- it's just a variation on Skylon, and we already have an article on that as well.WolfKeeper 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like there IS something to this. -Fnlayson 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep given that the only delete vote is per nom, and that the nom has withdrawn his nomination. User:Krator (t c) 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep per the above arguments, seems to be notable enough already, and this aircraft system will only grow in scale/fame due to it's EU funding and status. • Lawrence Cohen 13:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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.