Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpaceShaft

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceShaft

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

As noted by other contributors on the SpaceShaft talk page, the article reads like an original research with mostly unverifiable contents—tagging as such has not yielded any significant improvement since April 2011. SpaceShaft fails Reasons for deletion 6, 7 and 8, and it's inclusion in the Non-rocket spacelaunch article has the same issues, while it's mention in the Space elevator is more appropriate but having a citation with broken link. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an article about a proposed structure, and it reads like an essay. Fails WP:BALL, WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdfusion (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No 3rd party sources found. Fails WP:GNG. -- 101.117.28.72 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there some reason not to wait for more improvement? It's only been a couple years. Bryce (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2014 (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.