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The result was Speedy Keep - both withdrawn and SNOW. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wave disk engine[edit]

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

This is an article about an engine which doesn't exist. One researcher has published some ideas and is doing some experiments which have caught the interest of the popular press and blogs, but it doesn't appear anybody has actually built one of these yet. When they do, wikipedia will need an article on it. Since it doesn't currently exist, neither should this article. WP:FUTURE -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we don't need this article, but it's clear that I'm alone in that opinion, so nomination withdrawn. No need to waste people's time on a debate whose outcome is already obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popular Science has written an article (cited in the article) and that is pretty damn notable if you ask me. As to the idea that no one has built one yet, that is utterly and completely meaningless in the context of an AFD. The article needs work, for sure, but the subject matter has been covered by reliable sources and is notable as an engine theory. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.196.129 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original premise that "it doesn't appear anybody has actually built one of these yet" is incorrect. From the Popular Science article listed as reference #3: "Michigan researchers have built a prototype of a new auto motor". It also has a picture of the prototype. In the YouTube video under External links, you see the principal researcher holding a prototype of the engine - from back in 2009. --174.97.221.53 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has multiple well-known, verifiable sources which state a prototype was built. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think your disputing notability here (it seems to have recieved a fair bit of coverage) and existance isn't generally a criteria for inclusion. I do agree that this article is in need of some TLC though, Rescue? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:FUTURE, the article List of weapons in Star Trek is acceptable. This subject has significant coverage from reliable sources. We will have a long-term article on this no matter what is built. It will either be revolutionary or a big dud. In either case, it will continue to be notable and we should have an article that can be refined as more information becomes available. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW CLOSE PLEASE Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not called for, theres a legitimate debate here for at least a couple days Bob House 884 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason the proponent gave for deletion is factually incorrect. At least on has been built. The article does badly need a criticism section, though. Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3rd party refs are there and although we aren't all driving them yet, it's way past WP:CRYSTAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I wouldn't call New Scientist 'popular press' or blogs, and that's where I heard of this gadget before finding this AfD. (BTW I would dispute the reference detail as posted - my UK copy of the magazine is dated 12th March 2011 not 15th as in the reflist. May be a different publication date in the USA, may be a typo.) There's a rather nice diagram, too, which looks rather like a sectioned Nautilus shell. According to the article, a prototype has been shown to the "US Dept of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy". Peridon (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15th is what it says on the online article. I get it hard copy. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Funded by ARPA-E http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/OtherProjects/VehicleTechnologies/WaveDiskEngine.aspx htom (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage, and is obviously encyclopedic. Dream Focus 03:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close AFD. The references are legitimate, and to state this doesn't exist is generally incorrect. There is a prototype. Considering how much coverage this prototype has gotten then, and the fact that the project is being funded by the United States government (DARPA particularly, I think), this is a keeper. I'm calling for closure at this point, despite the above notes, per WP:SNOW - while there is, indeed, legitimate discussion, I don't foresee anyone else calling for a deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closing AFD. This article has been tagged for rescue. Let the AfD time out as usual to provide more time for Article Rescue Squadron members - some of whom only check in once a week - to improve the article. What's the hurry? Guy Macon (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article will end in keep, that's pretty obvious. Only person who says delete is the nominator, with a bad rational. If the nominator will withdraw their nomination, and no other people say delete, then we can close this. Dream Focus 08:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This is the subject of extremely wide coverage. Even if it was only hype, it would be sufficiently successful hype to warrant an article. But it's also a research topic with numerous Google Scholar hits. Looks like a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination to me or a very fundamental misunderstanding of our notability criteria. Hans Adler 10:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw an article on space elevators, I think we should delete both pages because nobody has built a space elevator yet. Larryisgood (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that we shouldn't delete the page merely because the engine hasn't been built is ridiculous. This has reputable references and has been covered in the mainstream media, it should have an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.89.93 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Sufficiently notable concept.—RJH (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!" (Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne, 1945) Peridon (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Withdrawn, enough said. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, and something people will want to look up.dougmc (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely notable and deserves recognition on Wikipedia. Aceholiday (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is, for all intents and purposes, over. The nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. We are simply waiting for somebody to close the discussion. If you are here intending to !vote keep you may wish to consider that unless you have a new and compelling reason, there isn't an awful lot of point in you doing so. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (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.