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 speedy delete all as copyright violations. This is in no way a judgment on the "worthiness" of the topics themselves; we just can't have text dumps of copy written books sitting in the mainspace. If someone wants to create new, original articles at this namespace, feel free to do so (and I note that consensus here would appear to suggest that if these were not copyvios they would have all been kept).--Isotope23 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas tube rocket hypersonic launcher, etc.

[edit]

plus images

Three unusual ways of getting stuff into space. Surely these are non-notable, won't work theories or original research. Read like something out of From the Earth to the Moon (Jules Verne) or The First Men in the Moon (H. G. Wells). Given the inventor's name, I am very tempted to describe them as "a load of bollonks". -- RHaworth 11:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now discovered that we think Alexander Bolonkin is notable but I am still dubious about his inventions. -- RHaworth 11:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three. These are neutral, sourced technical articles about processes which aren't mainstream enough to warrant inclusion in paper encyclopaedias and which would be hard to find elsewhere; this type of article is Wikipedia's great strength. I've cleaned up Inflatable Space Tower, which was a mess in terms of layout. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ugly but salvageable if we had a second real source. MrZaius^talk 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've dug out & added a couple of independent sources for Inflatable Space Elevator. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if the other two get deleted I think Inflatable Space Tower warrants separate consideration, as it's far more detailed than the other two. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Agreed with iridescenti. While they fail the independence qualification of WP:N, the articles appear to describe the inventions of A. Bolonkin neutrally and are informative. I would invoke WP:IGNORE unless other concerns are raised. -- intgr 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: These appear to be documented, especially the "inflatable tower" on the NASA pdf. It should be clear that these are highly theoretical designs. Also, I suggest we consider merging Cable Space Launcher with Mass driver, they appear to be very similar devices. The only major difference is that the Cable Space Launcher does not directly accelerate the payload like an electromagnetic rail gun, uses a "linear electric motor" (assumed to be similar design) to accelerate the pull cable going underneath. Danski14^(talk) 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Just had a look through them and the references include some reputable journals so the concepts aren't original research. And whether they "won't work" is irrelevant to whether we should have an article. Bryan Derksen 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. I would change my view to "keep" if the articles showed that these ideas had received serious consideration by the rocket science community. And the articles must make it clear how far these designs have got off the drawing board - I suspect the answer is not at all. -- RHaworth 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feasibility or practicality are not factors that are considered for notability. See WP:N.Chunky Rice 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... I will also mention that Mass Drivers are actually considered feasible for cargo payloads (not people). And surprisingly, the space tower is well documented in an official NASA pdf. Danski14^(talk) 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No evidence of notability, fail WP:SCIENCE. --EMS | Talk 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I extend my opinion to include items 4 and 5 at this time. --EMS | Talk 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am adding Circle Launcher and Space Keeper now. -- RHaworth 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Sourcing looks good. I'm not sure what the issue is.Chunky Rice 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you must be joking. There is just one source - no corroboration of any sort. -- RHaworth 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

combine The same sourcing is used for all, confirming a first guess that the articles can be merged. I would suggest merging them all, under a title like Non-Rocket Space Launch and Flight devices The material is not duplicated in the article on Bolonsky, and it shouldn't be because there is enough for an article here, and he is notable on other grounds as well.DGG 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am adding Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitude now. I note the images are being tagged ((PD-self)) - I suggest this gives us grounds to delete all this as original research. -- RHaworth 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Huh, is that supposed to make any sense? How would the fact that this contributor drew the images invalidate current sources? -- intgr 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The PD-self tag confirms, in my view, that BKruglyak, the creator of these articles is probably Alexander Bolonkin himself or closely connected with him. Quite apart from putting a strong conflict of interest taint on them, this means that they are simply repeating their own ideas here which I call original research. For anyone else to write these articles it would not be OR because they are reporting someone else's research. -- RHaworth 08:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Comparing the illustrations to the ones on the website, it appears that they're re-drawn from them, rather than the same images. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I don't think so; compare Image:MLS-F1.gif with [1]. I'm pretty confident that the uploaded image is simply an unscaled version of the image from Bolonkin's web site. -- intgr 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "Original research" is research that is published nowhere other than Wikipedia; someone's own research published elsewhere is not original research. Refer to WP:OR#Citing oneself and WP:COI#Citing oneself. -- intgr 12:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not been pushing the copyvio aspect because the author would almost certainly grant permission to copy. But you may care to compare this at arxiv.org with Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitude. -- RHaworth 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up the Wind Energy one, which was a mess of wrong coding & line breaks, so at least it's being judged on content rather than appearance. (If this AfD results in merge, this one shouldn't be merged, since it doesn't relate to the other four.) I would strongly advise User:BKruglyak to use the preview button before s/he adds any more content to Wikipedia on this or any other topic, to use wikilinks in the textand not to cut-and-paste from other websites, especially sites using coding that isn't compatiable with Wikipedia. I'd also strongly advise him/her to dig out references rather than relying on a single author's technical papers; these articles are sourcable from multiple independent sources (as I've done with Inflatable Space Tower), but I've not got the time to do it for all five. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The original author of these articles does not appear to communicate with us at all — he hasn't yet responded to my inquires on the copyright status of images taken directly from Bolonkin's web site, nor this AfD nomination, despite making numerous edits after these inquiries were made. -- intgr 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree - given the effort I put into redesigning, rewriting & sourcing Space Tower I'm surprised I didn't get some feedback (even a "leave my article alone, you're not taking it the way I want it to go"), given that their edit history shows they've been active since then - but being antisocial isn't grounds for deletion. They're a very new user and I note from the edit history that they've never made an entry on a user or talk page - they might not understand how they work. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding Earth–Moon Cable Transport System at this point. -- RHaworth 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I add a strong delete for Earth–Moon Cable Transport System to my previous opinion. This is blatantly original research, and the more I look at the other topics the same applies to them too. (Even if you can make a case the this marginaly gets past WP:NOR it utterly fails WP:ATT.) We already have a featured article on the space elevator. Dr. Bolonkin's jury-rigged ideas need not be confused with it. It also occurs to me that the editor responsible for all of this is most likely Dr. Bolonkin, making their creation a violation of WP:COI. --EMS | Talk 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not original research per WP:OR#Citing oneself, WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper), WP:ATT#Citing yourself and WP:COI#Citing oneself. Get your facts straight. -- intgr 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - If I am wrong about the editor being Dr. Bolonkin, then I am, but I would love to know how you know that if this is not Dr. Bolokin putting all of this stuff up. Even without that concern, this is non-notable material which is either self-published or placed into conference proceedings which most likely were not peer reviewed. I really, really cannot see any good reason for removing it all ASAP. --EMS | Talk 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "Original research" is research that is published nowhere other than Wikipedia; relying on someone's own research published elsewhere is not original research, be it a peer reviewed conference or not — the reliable sources policy governs that. -- intgr 07:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Peer review is the key phrase. Where is the evidence of peer review? Do we accept theories that have not received some sort of peer review? -- RHaworth 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations?

[edit]

Comment - copyright violations?: two similar articles, Kinetic Space Tower and Centrifugal Space Launcher, were found to be copyright violations from http://bolonkin.narod.ru/p65.htm. It is possible that some of the above listed are also copies of published works of Bolonkin, and are speedyable as copyvios. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Copyright held by Elsivier 2006. Straight cut and paste from e-Book (amazon for $200). Spoke with Dr. Bolonkin and says editor is a big fan, wants to help, but is not familiar with Wikipedia (or copyright). See my notes at User_talk:BKruglyak. CompRhetoric 14:08, 11 April 2007 (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.