Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum propeller (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum propeller[edit]

Neologism and original research. Not enough Google hits to create an article about something that doesn't exist. Also I'm under the strong suspicion, that this article was deleted in process some two years ago (as the the lemma was already on may observation list before the current version was created). But I was unable to find traces of that. --Pjacobi 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom --Joey Roe 21:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fictional device, original research, non-notable. Gwernol 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm the author. I'm not a pseudo-science crazy (but I would say that, wouldn't I).
  1. Google hits are not the sole criterion of notability. The concept is, however, used extensively in Science Fiction - much fictional interstellar travel requires the concept, even if not explicitly labelled as a 'vacuum propeller'. Did you check the link and the books?
  2. Many fictional things are documented in Wikipedia - Kryptonite, Cavorite, Luminiferous ether, Elves, Teleportation, Perpetual motion, etc. One more, which is actually (in my opinion) a useful concept doesn't seem to be excessive.
  3. It's not original research, as far as I can see - see the references in the article. Perhaps I'm missing something, but could you explain why you consider it to be original research? It certainly isn't on my part. Perhaps it should be renamed as 'Vacuum propeller (science fiction)'? I believe the concept deserves inclusion, but I'm open as to how it should be included. WLD 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To reply further, 'Vacuum propeller' is not a neologism. As Pjacobi says, there was an earlier attempt, I think by User:Palapala article entitled 'Vacuum propeller' - a Google search for Vacuum propeller leads to a previous discussion on User:talk pages where Pjacobi advises Palapala to merge the article into the Casimir effect article. See here:
As a matter of record, I (West London Dweller, WLD) am not Palapala.
Also, as a matter of process, Pjacobi did not notify the original author of the article on their talk page that it had been nominated. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette "Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised." - this was, unfortunately, overlooked. WLD 10:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By author's admission 'fictional' (which is another way of saying patent nonsense). To the author: yes, there are articles about kryptonite and warp drives. Get this idea into superman comics and/or Star Trek episodes and we can talk. In the mean time, it's not sufficiently notable. Bucketsofg 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The works of Charles Dickens and the plays of Shakespeare are fictional, but many would assert they are not patent nonsense. I don't think that particular proposition stands. As for notability, I'll repeat that I believe the concept to be worth documenting. As you rightly point out, Star Trek has its Warp drive. In addition Jerry Pournelle uses an Alderson drive in his novels, Ken Macleod uses wormholes and exotic matter. Those concepts are fictional, and by well published authors. Iain M. Banks appears to use what looks like the vacuum propeller concept - generating reaction against hyperspaces - in his Culture novels. Stephen Baxter also seems to use the same concept in his Xeelee novels - in his case with an alien spacecraft that flaps its wings (I'm not joking) to move across interstellar distances. To be clear, the concept is that of using free space as a working fluid to allow transfer of momentum. Vacuum propellor is simply a shorthand way of saying it. So the concept may not be in Superman comics or Star Trek episodes, but it is used in mainstream, well published science fiction. By the way, by author, I meant of the article, not the concept. WLD 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but this is not compelling. You cite two cases of authors describing a vacuum propeller. Stephen Baxter's novel you admit describes something different than the article - wings instead of a propeller. I am very familiar with Iain M. Banks's works and his culture novels do not describe anything like a vacuum propeller that I can recall. You'll need a specific citation to convince me. If you could provide a reference to the works of an author like Banks or Baxter who uses a vacuum propeller (and that is what the article is about, not "the concept is that of using free space as a working fluid to allow transfer of momentum") then do so in the article - it does you no good here. Then I, and I suspect others, could be persuaded to change their votes. Gwernol 15:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Gwernol, please don't take this the wrong way - I can see the way this vote is inevitably heading, but I'll cite the use of the concept in Excession, Chapter 7 (p.246 in my Orbit edition). The Yawning Angel and Charitable View are chasing the Sleeper Service:
"Sums, sums. How much mass had there been aboard the damn thing? Water; gas-giant atmosphere, highly pressurised. About four thousand cubic kilometres of water alone; four gigatonnes. Compress it, alter it, transmute it, convert it into the ultra dense exotic materials that comprised an engine capable of reaching out and down to the energy grid that underlay the universe and pushing against it...ample, ample, more than enough." My bold emphasis.
In other words, we have a machine that does not use reaction mass to generate velocity in a vacuum. Granted, Iain M. Banks doesn't call it a 'vacuum propeller', but I think the concept applies. I know this argument hasn't convinced anybody voting here, but at least I've tried. WLD 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "vacuum propeller" is not a fictional device, it's an imaginary device. Kryptonite, Cavorite, etc., are notable fictional materials, that is to say, materials described in notable works of fiction. This, on the other hand, is simply something that exists in the mind of the author and perhaps a few other people. MCB 08:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Agree with MCB. For me the Michelson-Morley experiment puts this in the realm of near pseudo-science, unless somebody can bring some amazing evidence to the table. :-) — RJH 16:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MCB. The problem is not that its fictional, the problem is that it's not notable. Kryptonite , Cavorite, etc., are notable fictional materials, in that they're dreamed about by millions of devoted readers. The Vacuum Propeller is a fine idea to write a notable, best-selling, top-of-the-line book about, but no one has done it yet - and the list of fine ideas that no one has written a book about yet is greater than the number of particles in the universe. GRuban 17:03, 27 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vacuum_propeller_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1080088571"