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. Did a quick search and this article could have sources one day but that day is not today. Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Aerosystems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This company does not appear to clear WP:NCORP. Very few sources were in this article even before a cull of promotional language (the references appear to be taking the place of notes, making this page an exercise in WP:OR), and the sources I found in my WP:BEFORE search are WP:ORGTRIV: routine news of product announcements, transaction announcements, etc. (Any company for which an infobox entry is accompanied by a ? is not likely to have the coverage in WP:SIRS necessary for NCORP.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom

Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT delete per nom. This request for deletion seems a petty attempt that folows too closely WP guidelines, and forgetting the spirit of Wikepedia. ARC Aero Systems (to which I have no connection) appear to be pn the brink of a major breakthrough in aviation, namely giving an autogyro/gyroplane (whose operating costs are a fraction of an equivalent helicopter) the capability of vertical take of and landing (VTOL). This can give massive savings for "air ambulances" and other emergency and military services, as well as benefitting commercial and private operators. Surely this is NOTABLE, FFS! Arrivisto (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • see WP:CRYSTAL. the purported future benefits to society a product developed by a private company are unsourceable, because they belong to the future.

  themoon@talk:~$ 09:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not crystal gazing. The ARC company have a working prototype that is halfway between an autogyro and a helicopter. Their plans for the future are announced. If WP purists/nerds seek to ban reports of cutting edge developments, then why does WP allow the page Boom Technology trumpeting the proposed new SST airliner, when all that has happened is that a one-third scale prototype has been flown successfully. (And by the way, JFK was so furious that the Anglo-French Concorde had beaten the USA to the punch, he proposed a massive new SST which proved to be unbuildable as well as doing everything he could to block Concorde sales to the UK and to stymie the project!). Arrivisto (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ARC company have a working prototype that is halfway between an autogyro and a helicopter.

good for them. It hasn't revolutionized aviation yet (or, source that claim).

Their plans for the future are announced.

good for them. plans belong to the future. personally i plan to become the god-king of mars.

then why does WP allow the page Boom Technology

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. nominate that page for deletion if you believe it shouldn't exist. I doubt it would pass AFD, seeing as it's a considerably better sourced article. Maybe their prototype is worse than ARC's. that doesn't matter. Perpetual motion machine has an article despite being proven to be physically impossible, wikipedia isn't a repository of the best ideas, it catalogues verifiable claims about things.

their only currently verifiable notable achievements are being a company that exists and having built a prototype. anything else (unless you can source additional, notable, claims) is textbook WP:CRYSTAL. themoon@talk:~$ 10:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should have been G11 as it as promotional advert failing WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional crap that breaks Wikipedia Terms of Use. scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 4 February 2025 (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.