Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Interstellar (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus Interstellar[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 topic was brought up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Spacedrives along with their project about an antimatter rocket, the latter of which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket. It was noticed that this article is written like a PR and has flimsy, WP:PROFRINGE sources. Upon analysis of the sources, there was at most one usable item for notability.

List of sources:

[1]: Primary source.
[2]: Dead link to and Alaska government website, possibly with regards to its registration status as a nonprofit.
[3]: Primarily an interview.
[4]: Primary source.
[5]: Dead link, presumably a primary source.
Duplicate of 1
[6]: Paywalled, can't tell.
Duplicate of 3
[7]: Primarily about their Project Persephone, not Icarus; almost entirely based on the members' own comments.
[8]: Dead link
[9]: Primarily about Project Persephone; seems rather pro-fringe.
[10]: Dead link?
[11]: Passing mention; primarily about Eric Davies.
[12]: Scheduale for a conference organized by Icarus.
[13]: PR-like article describing the the conference; I don't think this is encyclopedic.
[14]: PR.
[15]: Dead link.
[16]: Primary source.

The previous nomination in 2014 did not adequately scrutinize the sources found, and may have been held to lower standards than current WP:FRINGE guidelines. The article claims that no updates on their projects have been published since 2015, suggesting that the project went inactive not long after the last AfD; thus, I have not attempted WP:BEFORE. It may also be worth investigating the articles about their specific projects. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per User:LaundryPizza03's excellent analysis. I urge anyone evaluating this AfD to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Spacedrives. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in more recent coverage except passing mentions of the "oh yes, this also exists" variety. The previous AfD did not seem to examine the quality of the sources with the seriousness that I'd hope for. It's possible that we could say something about this organization in some article somewhere, but this PR job needs to go. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to obvious fringe issues (fusion drive, antimatter drive), the organization's mission statement sets a goal of interstellar flight by the year 2100. As it is currently AD 2021 when I am writing this, I feel confident in applying WP:TOOSOON here without hesitation. (As an aside, I note that they have a project similar to my username, but I have no connection to this company or project, have never heard of them before now, and we both likely used similar mythological sources). Hyperion35 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists 13 publications in the peer-reviewed Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, which isn't FRINGEy. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such publications were also not particularly noteworthy in the grand scheme of things. It's wonderful when societies like this publish journals, but when they remain as obscure as this particular journal, it is not really Wikipedia's job to use publications of this sort as a basis for a notability argument whether or not the papers/journal in question is strictly WP:FRINGE material. jps (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thirteen review papers in a low-tier, regional journal is an extremely poor showing for a scientific field like interstellar travel. Furthermore, these papers are only cited by a handful of publications by later researchers. Finally, looking at JSTOR and Google Scholar, there seems to be a distinct absence of recent, post-2013, conference presentations and peer-review papers related directly to Icarus Interstellar. From what I can find, there is a lack of any indication that Icarus Interstellar has made a recognizable significant contribution to science and is even actively researching anything. The recent activity seems to be on its online shop and blog. Paul H. (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether there is recent activity. Notability is never connected to the recency of activity. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of followup by other scientists as indicated by the lack of subsequent citations of research and the lack of any continuing progress in their research is a strong indication in science that Icarus Interstellar failed to produce anything significant / notable to continue working on. Simply, Icarus Interstellar is a dead end that lacks any significant (notable) influence on the development of its field of specialty. Unless such a dead end can shown to have had a notably influence on the development of its field using reliable sources, it is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Merely having published isn't evidence of wiki-notability. Compare the notability guideline for individual scientists: the first way to be notable is if their research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Importantly, Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. We need more than the existence of writings; we need evidence of their influence. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "lack of followup by other scientists as indicated by the lack of subsequent citations of research" is indicative of a lack of notability. However, the "distinct absence of recent, post-2013, conference presentations and peer-review papers related directly to Icarus Interstellar" is not. Albert Einstein hasn't published anything recently either. We judge them on what they have done and whether it is notable: it does not matter if what they've done is not recent. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein continues to get citations long after his death, and that's not counting the people who work with theories he pioneered but who don't bother pointing to specific papers of his because his ideas are so successful as to become ubiquitous. Icarus Interstellar didn't get significant attention while it was active, and nothing they did years ago has become more influential in the interim. XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, yes, the "lack of followup by other scientists as indicated by the lack of subsequent citations of research" is indicative of a lack of notability. I wasn't disagreeing with that. I am reminding other editors of WP:NTEMP. Repeated reference has been made to them not being active in recent years, but this has no relevance to the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, the problem is that their primary notability appears to be due to prospective future events. This is why I pointed to WP:TOOSOON in my comment above. If there was further recent coverage of their efforts towards their planned space program, then that might be notable. But if there is not further coverage, and without any actual accomplishment, then that would indicate a lack of notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a subscription to the New York Times, I visited Source 7, [17]: Paywalled, can't tell. This article does not offer any evidence of notability for the Icarus Interstellar. The article simply presents two short quotes about interstellar travel from Richard Obousy and simply identifies him as president of Icarus Interstellar. The article does not say that Icarus Interstellar is notable in any manner. It just mentions that is a group of volunteers researching interstellar travel. Paul H. (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think issues with WP:SOAP are also present here. It seems to me that boosters of this outfit may be hoping to use Wikipedia to gain additional notoriety which is WP:NOT what we are supposed to be doing here. jps (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the comments and analyses above; i.e., the subject is not notable and nearly every source is unreliable, irrelevant, and/or WP:PROMO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2021 (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.