Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerovator

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. W.marsh 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aerovator

The author of this article proposes a contraption that cannot work as intended because its aerodynamic drag is prohibitive. To overcome the drag thousands of powerful jet engines would be needed. State of the art rocket launchers are certainly more economical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towelhead (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Whether the device described in this article is physically possible is not the issue. However, if this contraption was truly "proposed" here in this Wikipedia article, that would make it original research and thus ineligible for a Wikipedia article. No recommendation on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Descriptions of many other outlandish space transportation contraptions are posted at:

http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/ http://www.geocities.com/danielravennest/CanonicalList.html http://www.vectorsite.net/tarokt.html

Some of these contraptions seem more practicable than the aerovator. Towelhead 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete as original research. This suggests that the term is more commonly used for a gardening tool, in which case we could rewrite after the current version gets deleted. Kavadi carrier 01:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the suggestion that this should be deleted. The authors are apparently using Wikipedia as a place to publish a paper on their proposed concept and advocate it to the public. They should use a more appropriate venue, most preferably one of the research journals in the field of aerospace engineering, to publish original ideas. The question of whether it would work is not primary here-- for that discussion, though, they could put up a page elsewhere and discuss it there. If the article is published in a more appropriate page, it would be reasonable to put up a short Wikipedia article linking to it. Geoffrey.landis 15:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This was "developed in May 2006 in a discussion on the Yahoo Group on space elevators..." - not exactly a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Besides which it wouldn't work. Fever dream. Herostratus 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of technical merit it seems clear from the talk page that this is original research done by the author or contributors. Stardust8212 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per herostratus Localzuk^(talk) 21:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not the place to publish original ideas. Show me that the world has taken notice and I may vote differently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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.