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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Propulsion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced OR misunderstanding about the physics of jet propulsion, strangely, jet propulsion does not permit perpetual motion machines. Please vote Speedy delete. - Wolfkeeper 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Original "research" claiming that jet propulsion represents perpetual motion based on a lack of understanding of underlying physical principles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom and WP:BOLLOCKS. andy (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not Speedy: It's bollocks all right, but there's no Speedy category for that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, but it's going to snow.- Wolfkeeper 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there ought to be a ((db-bollocks)) template. A close cousin to db-nonsense - it looks like English but effectively has no meaning. andy (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - blatant hoax. Claritas § 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-encyclopedic subject, at best incomprehensible, at worst a hoax. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, and per Ahunt's comments. It's very hot here today, so some SNOW would be nice! - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, near speedy - Just a hoax, junk, garbage, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as high a speed as we can attain using actual physics rather than a non/self-cited load of crap or content-fork of existing perpetual-motion pages (iff this particular flavor of crap were notable). DMacks (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOWed; I'm calling snow.- Wolfkeeper 00:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. All OR and mostly likely a hoax.--Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable pseudoscience. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2010 (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.