Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starseed launcher

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starseed launcher

del A 1997 idea of star travel, a smart one, but unfortunately didn't gain notability in last 9 years. The article was set to {{prod}}, but opposed. mikka (t) 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The comment on the talk page says it best - "fringe, but not crank". It is a genuine concept, which whilst not well-known may be of interest to some. There is also an offer to work to improve the article and that person should be given a chance to work on it. Kcordina 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per User:Kcordina. JIP | Talk 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting concept, could be of interest, and I'm encouraged by Georgewilliamherbert's willingness to work on the article. -- Vary | Talk 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above MLA 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment to enthusiasts Sci-fi books have zillions of "not krank" concepts. Anything beyond the author's papers would be original research, unless this concept was discussed elsewhere and you are summarizing it. Basing solely on the original works is still original research. What is more, electrostatic accelerators and putting nanothings in them are not new idea. laynching nanos is K. Eric Drexler's idea and electrolaunchers are 80 year old idea now, if not older. Finally, it doesn't seem to be published in peer-reviewed journals. His website says that it was "printed in May, 1996 'prepress' issue of NanoTechnology, which I read that it was kicked out of the "real" issue of NT. If it is so, one more point towards original research. mikka (t) 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Forrest Bishop has published a number of interesting proposals over the years.[1] Perhaps this page should be merged into a biography? — RJH 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this would be a very sound idea. mikka (t) 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Hardly cranky at all. Reyk 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thi problem is not crankiness, but notability and original research. Please provide third-party discussions of the copncept. mikka (t) 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to a message posted by Forrest Bishop on a message board, the concept was mentioned in the March 1999 issue of Discover Magazine, though not by name. I looked at the TOC of the issue at the Discover website, but don't have access to the contents, so I couldn't verify the claim. Thunk 23:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• So far unverified, so I say Merge & redirect Vizjim 00:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to the Forrest Bishop rants, keep there. Even a page about a minor nerd like Forrest Bishop belongs to WP, and optimally it should surely contain the list of his favorite meals as well as the ideas he trumpeted, including this one. But a mere combination of the rail gun with few nano cliches, fairly obvious to anyone who is not a technological analphabet, should not count for a hypothetical spacecraft, even though it may be one of zillions of valid design combinations. Only projects that have achieved some reputation or stage of development, such as Orion or Daedalus, should be included there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokot.kokotisko (talk • contribs)

• Keep. Look, if you are going to argue it's completely un-peer-reviewed research that nobody else has bothered to publish anywhere, at least google it before you say so. In this case, the thirty second exercise shows that Forrest Bishop did this as a peer reviewed paper at the Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology conference and its proceedings. This does not meet the Wikipedia Original Research criteria, and spending a couple of minutes with google before nominating for AfD would have shown you that. Georgewilliamherbert 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My friens, you are so naive about conferences of this type. mikka (t) 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Are you going to add this to the page? Until you do, the article remains unverified.Vizjim 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's not the point. People are nominating stuff for AfD on grounds that don't stand up to thirty seconds of Google research. If I can falisfy the claimed AfD justification with less than a minute's work... AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags and improving articles. This needs to be added to the article, yes, but to get an article improved you stick a cleanup tag on it. Articles should be deleted if they aren't notable, aren't sourced at all, are truly original research, or are otherwise abusive. Needing cleanup and references are improvements not deletion criteria. Georgewilliamherbert 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  I did google search before nomination (I am not freshman, you know), and I am still convinced of lack of both notability and originality. I can stuff wikipedia with hundreds of such premature undercooked inventions with flashy names. Man, sci-fi writers have dozen each. But it seems you all like it, so relax. That's votes for deletion are for.mikka (t) 03:39, 12 March 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.