Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge (2nd nomination)

Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge

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

Non-notable. I removed one reference which was a post by Kota which didn't even mention ACTE. Most of the rest of the references are primary sources; Kota's own university faculty pages, and a publicity piece by NASA. Yes, they test flew his idea, but they test fly lots of stuff and a test flight doesn't make it notable. I didn't evaluate the Fox News reference beyond noting it was Fox News and dismissing it for that reason.

I can't find anyplace that supports the claim of 12% fuel savings; the only mention is in the Times of India article, which is a short local boy makes good human-interest article about Kota and only cites unnamed aeronautical experts worldwide.

I know this made the front page under DYK, but that just makes me wonder about the quality of the DYK review process.

Note: the first AfD was closed procedurally with no bias either way, so re-nominating for a fresh debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times of India bio is admittedly not great. The Fox News article that the nominator dismissed out of hand needed no such dismissal (regardless of one's political alignment, Fox News is generally a reliable source). The NASA press release is arguably not independent, and the university pages most certainly are not. Were that all there was to go on, I'd be more inclined to side with deletion. But they are not. There's discussion of the topic by Scientific American here and in one of their senior editor's WP:NEWSBLOGs here, Bloomberg Business (which even drew an illustration with a hilariously out-of-context Twilight Zone tribute), and Popular Science. There's room for editorial quibbling, I'm certain, about where we should have this information (at the current title, under the company name, under the company's product name, or in BLP format titled after the inventor responsible), but none of that is an issue for AFD to consider. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first SciAm item. It does not meet WP:GNG. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I agree that SciAm is generally a reliable source. But, this is not significant coverage, and it pushes the definition of independent. This is a short piece which reads like a press release for Kota's company. It briefly mentions three different projects. ACTE is only mentioned in the last paragraph, and not even by name. Two thirds of the space is devoted to a photograph and three videos credited to Kota. The 12% fuel savings is repeated here, this time as a statement attributed to Kota, and full of vague claims (could boost, as much as).

I also looked at the SciAm newsblog. This also strikes me as not significant coverage and not independent. It's a rehash of an article Kota wrote (In our May 2014 issue, Sridhar Kota [...] published an article, etc). It includes absurd puffery as, Kota and his collaborators at NASA and the U.S. Air Force say the test is an aviation first. Of course it was an aviation first. All test flights are aviation firsts. That's the point of test flights. That doesn't make it notable.

Then I look at the PopSci article. It features a YouTube video produced by Kota's company. It cites no sources other than quotes from Kota. Conclusion, it's another warmed-over press release.

In short, do we have sufficient references to be confident this exists? Yes. Is it notable? No. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is true that the claim of 12% fuel savings is dubious. The Bloomberg Business link given by Squeamish Ossifrage says "FlexSys says that its flap cuts fuel use by 4% to 12%", which is certainly more correct than the (IMO plain wrong) "aeronautical experts worldwide have said will bring down jet fuel costs by up to 12%" of the Times of India. Furthermore IMO the fule saving is calculated only when the flaps are used (basically at startup and landing), which is a tiny period compared to the whole flight. Newertheless it seams to me that the technology is interesting and it is better to ameliorate the article (making it less an ad for Mr. Kota) than to delete it.--Danh (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nascent technologies are worth keeping, and this one appears to have some promise. Even if it fails, lots of promising technologies fail for one reason or another and still qualify for inclusion. Let's give this a little time and see what happens. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Air Force found enough promise in the technology to actually build flight hardware to test it. Flight testing anything that significantly changes the aerodynamics of an aircraft is not trivial as it entails considerable time, money and even risk. This makes it notable in my view. The article itself, though, contains too much self-promotion. All mention of FlexSys Inc beyond being the system's supplier are superfluous. Also, since the tests are apparently still being conducted, the article is necessarily incomplete until the test results are in. However, aerodynamic structures that can flexibly adapt have been a continuing field of interest for years now, so Wikipedia should at least include a mention of the ACTE for those researching the field, and when the test are complete the article can later be filled out with the results. Roarshocker (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]