Talk:Adaptive compliant trailing edge

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

A fact from Adaptive compliant trailing edge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge (pictured) is a shape-changing flap for aircraft wings intended to substantially reduce fuel cost and noise?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge (ACTE).

Wikipedia

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 29 January 2015, see discussion.
procedural close article is on main page. Non admin close, 28 January 2015, see discussion.

Title case – proper noun?

Why is the article title in title case? Is there some reason why this is considered a proper noun? Is it a brand name? The article doesn't seem to convey that. Wikipedia doesn't use title case for article and section titles except to comply with other capitalization rules, which would tell us not to capitalize common nouns, such as trailing edge flap, noise-reduction equipment, flight control surface, and so forth. If I don't see some justification for title case soon, I'll move the page. Holy (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were no replies to this, so I've moved the page to comply with Wikipedia standards for article titles. Holy (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion closure

A more detailed note; I have closed the Afd according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Procedural closure, that a page currently on the main page should not be nominated for deletion. This is entirely procedural so is with no prejudice against renominating it once it is off the main page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to vote

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.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The near-constant drag coefficient looks very interesting, and would--if I understand correctly--provide improvements in fuel and handling, although the degree of improvement is beyond my lay understanding.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent tech

This tech has been developed over 20 years (and $40 million), and is only now being flight tested (2014). I think the article should stay, as ACTE use may increase after FAA approval, etc. And 12% fuel savings is really major, if it is true. Leave the article and see if develops in the coming months. Jake Papp (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what?

So if I am reading this correctly, this article implies the 12% of the total drag of a modern aircraft is due to the drag caused by the slot between the flap and the rest of the wing/fuselage? I find this extremely hard to believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]