Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photonic laser thruster

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. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photonic laser thruster[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article, about the research of Young K. Bae, was created by Young K. Bae him/herself. The article does not cite any references that establish notability. With one exception the only cited references that discuss photonic laser thrusters are the ones by Bae. All of the other references are cited to support points about historical background (like other propulsion systems) or general principles. The one possible exception is the paper by F.Y Hsiao et al., which may be about photonic laser thrusters. Someone would have to get a copy and review it to find out. There are certainly not enough reliable secondary sources cited to establish notability. I strongly suspect that the lack of sources establishing notability is because such sources do not exist. Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate independent sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep/merge It doesn't seem difficult to find independent coverage in sources such as Popular Mechanics. Perhaps, to damp down the hype, it might be merged with a more general page such as Laser_propulsion#Photonic_laser_thruster but deletion seems inappropriate per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew D. thinks deletion of literally anything is inappropriate and once it exists on Wikipedia it should be preserved for eternity. It's clear that this article is promotional, and development on this topic has not left the article's author's own lab. A single magazine blurb does not show this early-stage single-author research topic is notable, and the section at Laser propulsion, also written by the scientist to promote his own work, is itself excessive for something other researchers beyond Bae are not addressing. Reywas92^Talk 18:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article by Hsiao et al. is about photonic laser thrusters, but it is insufficient by itself to establish wiki-notability and it has itself essentially been ignored (1 citation on Google Scholar or on NASA ADS). The existing content is overtly promotional, trying to lead the scientific community instead of following it, exactly the kind of hype we should not preserve. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear author COI and promotion of Y.K. Bae Corporation. We already have a laser propulsion article and solar sail discusses its use for interstellar travel. There is no strong evidence that Bae's version is notable enough for a standalone article. The Popular Mechanics article found by Andrew is pretty much churnalism from a press release and not enough by itself for notability. SpinningSpark 00:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete laser propulsion is sufficient. Keep the image though. It's stellar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above concerns about lack of secondary sources and COI issues. I would furthermore suggest that, should this article be deleted, that the corresponding section in laser propulsion also be removed from that article, as it suffers from the exact same issues as being promotional material added by Young Bae, using only his own work as references. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2019 (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.