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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The experimental work appears to be occuring in a relatively open manner, initial experiments appear to show a positive result, the work is attracting interest from several notable sources and has been written up in popular science journals. My personal view is that the theory is wrong, conservation of energy and momentum are maintained, and the positive results so far are measurement error due to small differences between large numbers. BUT as long as the artcile gives fair weight within the wiki policy to both claims and doubts, there is no reason for us to pre-judge the science by removing it from view, and we should continue to reflect the debate. NeilUK 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked up relativity drive and was redirected to EmDrive. I found the article useful. –Gunslinger47 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing is being claimed in this invention that introduces any kind of 'new science', perpepual motion, zero-point energy or other quackery normally present in most junk science. Research appears to be fairly open, and the papers have been sent to a number of people. If the maths is wrong, then let us see why the maths is wrong, and not just dismiss what we do not understand (and I mean that in the strictest sense, not in the 'science does not know everything' sense). -- Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.173.74 (talk • contribs) (the Swindon anon from Swindon, England)
Keep. "Junk science" is a content dispute, not a notability criterion or assertion of nonsense. If there are questions of the scientific merit of this drive, then they should be addressed in the article, not simply relegated to the delete bin. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply making a bold claim doesn't add to the world's knowledge. Wikipedia's task is still documenting knowledge, not being a news portal. --Pjacobi 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a useful article regardless of whether the content will hold up to scientific scrutiny. Wikipedia contains other articles with dubious scientific merit like creationism,and Orgone box therapy, yet no one argues the merit of keeping such articles. This article provides infomation on a current scientific hot button. It gives both sides of the argument, it should be kept. - tnorwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.149.179 (talk • contribs) (the ptr.us.xo.net anon near Brooklyn, New York)
Keep , Merge and edit out the junk. It appears to be a notable subject, but taken way too seriously by the article. Deli nk 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a front page article of New Scientist. It's not question of whether this article is uselful or not, whether relativity drive is junk science or real science. In wikipedia, it'a all about NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research. Given the New Scientist article, this debate about deletion should be terminated. Vapour
Keep. Why not remove articles about cold fusion and Bigfoot. Scientific claims that create this much controversy are important regardless of their validity. 66.195.209.226 03:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)i55 (the Greensboro anon near Greensboro, NC; possibly bogus registration)[reply]
Delete. This is not a "scientific claim". This is not generating "this much controversy", because its not controversial, and everyone agrees its junk. It should be deleted because it is not notable. WP should not contain articles on every bogus culture blip out there. In particular, there are many many many print magazines out there, and at this time, WP does not have an article about every topic that was ever discussed in a printed magazine. WP does not even have an article about every printed magazine ever published: I (+my parents) have current subscriptions to almost a dozen magazines, which have been in print for 40-50 years, for which there does not even exist a WP overview! Ergo, just because some topic appears in some magazine doesn't mean that the topic is "notable". Its got a lot lot lot farther to go before it becomes notable. I don't want to see WP filling up with drivel, because the drivel is unmaintainable. Its a crank magnet that invites dimwits with too much time on their hands to sap the energy and goodwill of capable WP editors, breeds hostile edit wars, and is generally harmful to the WP camraderie. Such articles are also harmful to WP's reputation as a consistent and accurate source of information. There is no good in this. linas 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who is supposedly against hostility on Wikipedia, your comment seems rather hostile in tone. –Gunslinger47 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I'm hostile against the hostilists. I really hate them, because they bring out the worst in me. I resent having to show my hate. linas 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could merit a brief mention on a page called "List Of Prototype Devices That Claim To Break Very Well Established Laws Of Physics", but does not merit its own lengthy article. People are coming out with this nonsense all the time. None of these devices ever makes it to market, because none of them can work. Having a Wikipedia article on each impossible device is unmaintainable. --Strait 04:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It was in New Scientist, but they seem to publish articles on any old claim, regardless of how silly it is. The bottom line is that I don't see any peer-reviewed journal articles on this subject, so I don't think we have any reliable sources. -- SCZenz 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
major conferences by major bodies typically peer review papers to be presented at the conference. The article details such a paper, and doesn't detail an additional NASA one citing it with hope LinaMishima 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake "science" like this is a dime-a-dozen. It is not worthy of an article. JRSpriggs 06:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you remove everything from the article that is unsourced original research, what little remains is not notable. --LambiamTalk 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, surely the article's source is the New Scientist article, the emdrive.com web site, and the online magazine articles listed in the external links section? Or am I confused about terminology here? Shawyer performed original research and published his unsourced original research in the form of his paper and his responses to interviews, and we're documenting those sources? I've done some background reading (WP:NOT) and I've not found anything that disqualifies this article, in my understanding of it. It's not original research (I gather it would be if Shawyer came here and wrote his own article). It's NPoV since we're writing it as a documentation of what Shawyer has claimed, not writing his claims as fact. Etc. Is there a concensus that it has to have a peer-reviewed journal article to be mentioned? I'd say that it should have a peer-reviewed journal article to be mentioned *as fact*, but at least in my contributions, I've tried to document it as a *claim* rather than a *fact*. Alaric 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep cover story of New Scientist 9th September 2006. Regardless of correctness or otherwise, it is most certainly notable and documented. Indeed, if it is pseudoscience, then one with such a strong publicity deserves to be fully documented as such. I notice no-one has yet posted any google scholar search details. Again, better to well-document pseudoscience than to ignore it if that's what this turns out to be. You can't be educated about something that's been ignored. LinaMishima 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this paper, authored by NASA show they take this idea seriously - they cite the conference paper about this as footnote 71, encouraging further study into this matter. And again, pseudoscience cannot be used as a call for delete - it has been generally agreed that pseudoscience should be covered by wikipedia, as just because it's not real it doesn't mean that no-one wants to read about it. LinaMishima 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) The cover story makes it news, not knowledge. So it may be on topic for WikiNews, but nor for Wikipedia. (b) The abstract you cite is about Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, which we already cover well. --Pjacobi 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the paper I cite, if you can actually read it, refers to this subject however, making it relevent. Right there are footnote 71, something they are interested in. LinaMishima 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the deletion arguments given above. Flash-in-the-pan media coverage just doesn't matter. Let it die a natural death. Soon enough, it will be replaced by the next FTL/perpetual motion/entropy reversing machine to feed ravenously upon the spotlight like a science-choking weed of stupidity. . . . Anville 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most/all of the arguments here involve notability and notes to the effect (a quote here) "WP should not contain articles on every bogus culture blip out there.". Well it's too late for that, there are fully developed articles on fictional characters introduced in passing in barely-known video games and single songs off of forgotten albums by forgotten bands, and I would argue this is more notable than any of those. Maury 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I may be biased in that I created the article, but the reason I created it was to document Shawyer's claim, to add it to such existing articles as Dean drive, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Alcubierre drive, Krasnikov Tube, etc. I predict that many people, hearing of the EmDrive from New Scientist or other sources, will come to Wikipedia expecting an unbiased article of the claim and counter-claims. Alaric 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it's crap science (and it is) doesn't mean it should be deleted. └OzLawyer / talk┐ 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be junk, but it's well publicised junk, and so I came to Wikipedia looking for the details of why and how. We have articles on perpetual motion devices right back to the magic wheel, discussing the history surrounding their conception and explaining why they don't work - all of which can be done in a verifiable manner. This one is notable because of its news coverage. The argument that we can't maintain an article for every such device that generates such coverage is flawed, because clearly people are willing to maintain this article - and this ain't paper. MartinLing 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the article doesn't need some serious junk removal, just that deleting it is not the right answer to that. MartinLing 09:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Comparisons were made to Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Alcubierre drive, Krasnikov Tube, but these are subjects discussed in science journals, not in the popular press only (including popular science press). Also please note, that even the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program which was wide open to crazy ideas, had to set a bar, to limit the size of wastepaper basket needed. The EmDrive would fall under the Common Error List and not be accepted. Finally note, that the Dean Drive operating on such a common error is (marginally notable) for the large and continued interest it generated. This is not the case for the EmDrive. --10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As I have already pointed out, NASA actually are looking into this one, and it is most certainly not on the common error list. It has had a conference paper, and continued interest has been shown by the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. It upsets me to persistantly see people failing to read up fully on the matter before commenting on AfDs. LinaMishima 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that NASA is looking into this. There is, in fact, no evidence that anyone important is looking into it. There is a claim by the inventor that people are "interested", but where's the verification from those people? A quick look at the website emdrive.com shows just how much interest there seems to be in the concept. As for the "common error list", if it has to break a law of physics to work, it doesn't work. └OzLawyer / talk┐ 15:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you are an IEEE subscriber or have access to Athens, take a look at this paper. The abstract itself does not detail this, but it's listed within the paper as something to explore. And in this case, they are suggesting that it does not break a law of physics, it's an application of relativity. However all this matters not - if it is real, we cover it, and if it is psuedoscience, major psueoscience is something we should and already do cover! Indeed, that common error list is a case in point - science does not ignore psueodoscience, it gives rational counter arguments to it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinaMishima (talk • contribs)
Keep. This article for me gives the most balanced account of this topic I've found on the web. It's certainly notable, it's not self promotional. There are only facts in this article, it is fact that this guy has made this machine, and it is fact that he has made certain claims about his results. This article gives fair weight to claims and doubts and it is not for any wikipedian to pre-judge the science, we can wait for history to do that.--JohnBirch 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to delete this article, but I do think it's very important to keep it updated until there has been time for independent testing to establish if the claims are valid. If the claims are shown to be incorrect then we may have an interesting case history of self-deception in the sciences. Otherwise we will have some delightful new physics to examine. Neville Macaulife, nevillemac@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.74 (talk • contribs) (an aol proxy)
Keep. If we burned books containing what was considered nonsense at the time of publishing we would have never broken what were considered to be the 'laws' of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.77.90 (talk • contribs) (the rochd3.qld.optusnet.com.au anon from the Brisbane area
Comment: I am very disappointed that New Scientist has been publishing this kind of wild-eyed story. The basic problem with the article is seen in this passage: "since it violates well-established principles such as the conservation of momentum. One potential weakness of the theoretical basis given for the EmDrive is that it may not be valid to use the group velocity of a wave in a calculation of the radiation pressure; however, if Shawyer's experimental evidence is indeed valid, then this would appear not to be a problem." The problem with this is that these three considerations do not all carry equal weight! Violation of conservation of momentum is just about the gravest imaginable theoretical objection to any alleged engineering device; this objection makes any alleged "experiment verification" of an apparently small claimed effect (recall the alleged purpose is to adjust spacecraft orbits) extremely suspect. Another major problem with articles like this and comments like some of those above: in many previous cases, inventors looking to attract private capital have made vastly overblown claims of stated interest by Boeing, NASA, etc. Regarding the (now defunct) Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Marc Millis recently posted a comment in sci.physics.research deprecating some wild claims by John Hutchison anti-gravity fanatics in the Wikipedia which Lina should probably examine. I have often seen amateurs interested in "inventors" react with tremendous enthusiasm to wild claims which sell some glossy magazines but quickly die. For example, the article on Franklin Felber's claims was deleted some time back and not one nay vote was raised in protest. ---CH 02:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is true, this does not deal with the fact that one cannot educate people on something that one chooses to ignore. It is for this reason that wikipedia must cover psuedoscience. LinaMishima 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point, but I'm concerned about our ability to educatte people properly, and I'm with CH in being disappointed. The problem is that our "reliable sources," frankly, are failing us; New Scientist keeps publishing "fair and balanced" articles on subjects that should either be either solidly criticized or ignored. The scientific community ignores them, and then these bozos create a controversy to keep the magazine exciting, so our only source is the misleading New Science article. Siiiigh. -- SCZenz 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add some relevant information to my previous comment:
Science fiction author Greg Egan (who happens to be a physicist by training) has just posted (in the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.research, which traditionally was devoted to discussions by research physicists but unfortunately is now dominated by enthusiasts with little background in physics) a telling indictment of the New Scientist article on which the article under discussion in this AfD was based in the newsgroup sci.physics.research, which I hope everyone will read forthwith! In particular, note that Egan makes the same points that I, SCZenz, and others have made: in the physics community, New Scientist is increasingly regarded as the scientific analogue of The National Enquirer; contrary to the impression left by the cited article, the so-called EM drive appears to be firmly in the arena of pseudoscience, as suggested by the fact that the "inventor's" claims for this device would appear to violate conservation of momentum,
Several recent New Scientist articles, which in my opinion should never have been published, including the one critiqued by Egan, have been uncritically cited at the WIkipedia. While I understand why several voters here have stated that they feel the article should be kept but neutralized, I feel these voters underestimate the tenacity of the POV-pushing users, and I respectively request that in the near future they spend some time assisting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience members in trying to neutralize some older problem articles as well as EM drive, which appears very likely to become a new problem article in the physics pages here:
Cover article "Take a leap into hyperspace", New Scientist, 07 January 2006 describes a supposed "rocket driven by quantum gravity", allegedly ascribed to a so-called"Heim quantum theory for space propulsion" (no such theory is known to mainstream physics), and apparently mentions the so-called "EM drive"; see Talk:Heim theory for endless contentious wrangling with (in the first case) a user, Hdeasy (talk·contribs), who publishes fringe papers on Heim theory, which is generally regarded in the physics community as cranky; see also numerous letters suggesting why the editors may be impelled by the low tastes of certain readers to publish such Dreck,
An item in New Scientist, 27 October 2001 mentions a so-called "Dark Energy Metric Engineering Exotic Propulsion"; see for example Talk:Harold E. Puthoff, Talk:Stochastic electrodynamics, Talk:Bernard Haisch; see also a review of Haisch's book The God Theory in New Scientist, 03 June 2006, and the "Breaking News" item on Haisch/Rueda from New Scientist, 14 August 2005,
Earlier items apparently described putative "black budget secret government interest" regarding the so-called "Podkletnov effect", which appears to have been greatly overstated; see Talk:Eugene Podkletnov for contentious discussion.
Again, my point is that those voting for us to "to the right thing" and produce articles which describe dubious fringe proposals in WP:NPOV fashion should resolve to get involved themselves in helping Wikpedia users with expertise in advanced physics to keep all these articles in line with WP:NPOV. To a large extent, I feel that users without such expertise need to take the word of those with such expertise about what the mainstream views are, bearing in mind WP:AGF with regard to our fair-mindedness.---CH 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need articles on every perpetual motion machine, nor on every sensationalist New Scientist story. It is a travesty that there even has to be discussion about this sort of nonsense: it should be removable on sight. If the thing turns out to be somehow valid, it can come back when it is properly vindicated (but that would undoubtedly cause a few more ripples anyway).Byrgenwulf 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Nn junk science. Perhaps should be added to the list of perpetual motions machines, but not worth a seperate article. Salsb 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This research has not been published in a peer reviewed format, nor has it been independently verified. Given that it seems to violate one of the most fundamental principles of physics, this would constitute an extraordinary claim, which (as the aphorism goes) requires extraordinariy evidence. This extraordinary evidence is currently completely lacking. One of the arguments used to justify keeping it in wikipedia is that it was a cover story in New Scientist. However, we have to keep in mind the different goals of the wikipedia project (encyclopedic in scope, but also in quality) and a science magaizine like New Scientist (profit and increased interest in science). So, although this research project *might* be notable for a science magazine, it is not yet of encyclopedic quality. Edhubbard 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Made the 9 September 2006 cover of New Scientist, an international science magazine with a circulation of over 160,000 and a worldwide readership of over 670,000. With that level of exposure, it deserves coverage in Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of the research—not to be asserted as truth, but to be described, factually and neutrally. By the way, this AfD was announced at WikiProject Rational Skepticism, WikiProject Pseudoscience, and WikiProject Physics, where EmDrive is called "another of those pesky pages". Tim Smith 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sick of New Scientist being brought up in every AfD discussion on some borderline subject...in this ongoing AfD, it is being used to establish the "notability" of a manufacturer of tin-foil hats. Seriously. Frankly, this "EmDrive" is "another of those pesky pages" which pose a grave danger to the integrity of Wikipedia as a real encyclopaedia. And we are not an archive of New Scientist back issues, as far as I know. Byrgenwulf 21:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our standard for deletion is "notability", not "accuracy". Surely the very size of this AfD vote demonstrates its notability. Also, Comment, from what I've read it is not claiming to defy conservation of energy, as the cavities' q-value decreases sharply in accelerating frames of reference (i.e. energy disapears from the chamber and appears as kinetic energy). On the other hand, while I suppose it to be plausible, I must admit that when I first read it my thoughts were "What? Surely that's a misprint and they meant micro-Newtons per kilowatt!". -- Whitepaw 22:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After seeing the NewScientist article linked from another website, I instantly came to Wikipedia to try and get the full story, the controversy, etc. It's notable, and even if it isn't accurate, the fact that it's been generating attention is worthy of being included in the encylclopedia. Mark it as a "Current Event" if you will. If the science doesn't work, we'll record the EmDrive as being a failure. If it does work... well... then that'd be awesome. But either way, there needs to be an article. For those of you voting delete because you call it psuedoscience... well... then shouldn't you be able to find sources to refute the claims made in the article? That'd be a service to us all... showing how it doesn't work. Fieari 05:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The number one source suggesting that this is junk science (which is different from pseudo-science) is that it violates the well-established princliple of conservation of energy. This in itself suggests that the claims here would require extraordinary evidence, and as of yet, there is nothing published in reliable, respected, peer-reviewed journals. Not a single article. Just an interview in New Scientist, and a single conference presentation. We have to get away from the idea that New Scientist is in the business of only publishing well-established scientific facts. As there is nothing published yet in favor of this effect, other scientists have not yet been able to evaluate and examine the claims. To refute a claim you need to be able to properly examine it, which scientists cannot do on the basis of a New Scientist article alone. Edhubbard 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't matter if the article is good science or not. It could be a load of complete horseshit. We don't delete horseshit if it's notable. We have an article on perpetual motion don't we? You'll note that we don't say perpetual motion is possible, but we do have an article on it. That's why I'm voting keep. Because it's NOTABLE, even if it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. It's notable enough that aparently the US goverment has either been bamboozled by it, or is jumping onto the next big thing. Either way, that's pretty notable. And when the results come in, we can either report on how the US government picked up on a peice of junk science, or how they're going to develop it to make spaceships or flying cars or whatever. Either way, the article needs to stay. It's only the content that needs to change. Fieari 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment wasn't so much related to the vote for deletion (although it's relevant there, too) but mostly in reply to your comment "For those of you voting delete because you call it psuedoscience... well... then shouldn't you be able to find sources to refute the claims made in the article? That'd be a service to us all... showing how it doesn't work." The point I was making above is that you are asserting notability based on an idea that has no peer reviewed publications, but then want the nay-sayers to provide the counter-evidence. At this point, the burden of proof is not on the nay-sayers, but rather on the EmDrive proponents, who must provide the extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims... that's how science works. Also, citing something doesn't necessary mean that NASA has been bamboozled. Scientists will often cite competing data or hypothesis to point out how their results contradict the articles they cite. Edhubbard 19:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a little on Edhubbard's comment, since this is something that's been bothering me lately. Some things are just nonsense, be they pseudoscience, junk science, or whatever. Many of them are so transparently rubbish that no-one bothers publishing a peer-reviewed, serious article pointing out exactly why they are rubbish, leaving this work to the bloggers, "skeptic sites", etc. However, if the nonsense in question has a Wikipedia article, it too often proves impossible to use the article to "educate" people as to why the subject is nonsense, because there exist no "reliable sources" giving criticism of it, resulting in all criticism being reverted as "original research" or in the name of "NPOV". Even if the criticism added amounts merely to the application of generally well-accepted scientific principles, the "citation needed" tags spring up all over it, and it gets removed eventually, or forms a horrendous drain on whatever poor editor volunteers to shepherd the article). Hence the article ends up being a hagiography of the nonsense, which simply does not do for an encyclopaedia. Since Wikipedia is not a science-related news blog, there is no reason to report on phenomena which have not generated a decent amount of material in the peer-reviewed literature, and hence EmDrive doesn't yet have a place here. Byrgenwulf 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As cover story of New Scientist (circulation 163,000), this is either (i) an example of one of the largest pseudo science scams of the 21st century or (ii) correct. Either way it is a noteworthy topic and is currently the most visible source of a balanced article for those who are sceptical of the claims. 81.79.136.112 07:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This need not be either pseudo-science or correct. It could be a stastical artifact, measurement error, or many other possible factors that haven't been possible to examine yet, since as I noted in my vote for delete above, there are *no* peer reviewed articles on this effect. None. New Scientist is not in the business of providing peer review or scientific examination, and they may be guilty of promoting what turns out to be an honest error (at best). It may turn out be like cold fusion, another seemingly impossible claim that does not generally hold up to closer scientific scrutiny, and which has been rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Until there is at least some sort of peer review of the theory and experiments, we cannot even be sure that there is not a simple math error here (this applies, too, to the comment above by Fieari; how can we evaluate something that has only been "published" in the sciene equivalent of the Enquirer?). Do we need an article in wikipedia for every stastical artifact or poorly controlled experiment that makes it into the pages of New Scientist, without a single peer reviewed article? Edhubbard 07:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is interesting, in much the same way the Dean_Drive article is. It presents the fact that the science behind the EmDrive is contrary to current scientific principles.Whale September 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply because it may be pseudoscience (and if so, one that has convinced a number of goverment agencies) doesn't mean it warrants an automatic delete. Without any clear and obvious proof that a) it does wildly violate laws of physics, and b) no one but an extreme lunatic fringe takes it seriously, it appears to be generating enough interest to warrant an article. That doesn't mean the article has to be an endorsment, just that it should be a source of information for anyone who reads about it and is interested in finding more. Icelight 02:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons (a) If this is a real science, it should be kept. If a pseudoscientist succeeded to convince NASA in importance of his "research" which violates one of the fundamental laws of physics, such an unusual story certainly should be kept. (b) Anything which draws attention of many people deserves an article. Cover story in New Scientist means that lots of people know about this issue, so it deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia.
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.