Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 25 June 2014

Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source

Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No significant claim of notability and lacking sources to back up the claim. Instead of being here and attempting to improve this draft, the original author has decided to go on an attack of WikiProject Articles for creation. You can see the resulting drama on the projects talk page. Normally such drafts would be given some leeway to allow the author to improve the draft to a level that could have a 50% or better chance of passing an AfD, this case is an exception to that because the author apparently isn't interested in improving the draft. — {{U|Technical 13}} 19:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The author isn't interested in improving the draft? I invite anyone to go look at the original article, and the current article, and try to say that with a straight face. Of course, arbitrary, kangaroo court decisions are easier, aren't they? My biggest problem with Wiki right now is that there seems to be some sort of "consensus of the lazy" which encourages editors to simply drop a rejection notice in a draft and walk away, while giving no actionable input. When given actionable input, I acted. This is extremely clear and obvious if you were to bother to take a look at the development of the draft. But you probably won't. Deleting this article arbitrarily is an insult to everything Misplaced Pages stands for. Matthewhburch (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't it the author's actions that are the problem, rather than this draft? The draft will languish in Draft space in its current state and be of no harm to man or beast. If the author decides to move it to main article space then there are more powerful tools, such as AfD, to put a stop to it. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sionk, The author has decided they're just going to move it into mainspace. — {{U|Technical 13}} 19:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, then I'll wait for the inevitable AfD nomination and that should get it permanently deleted from mainspace. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete The author has said "However, it is not possible to reference any other document on the specific method that demonstrates a practical method, except the one I have written, because that specific subset of Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source has never been published. However, since it is a method of using existing technologies, defining the existing technologies that can be used to implement the method clearly define the method itself." at the Teahouse questions page in this revision, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. This says to me that, regardless of any other matter, it is WP:OR and an unreferencable non notable topic on which an essay has been written. In my rejection of the draft here I stated as much and left a more detailed comment. I will be pleased to be proven incorrect and for sufficient references to be found to render thsi suitable for inclusion, but can, at present, see no hope of that. I am ignoring the author's idiosyncrasies in placing this opinion Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that despite the fact that there is no codified name for "remote fueling" spaceflight propulsion methods, there is a great deal of remote fuel research that has been done, including a real world application called Robotic Refueling Mission The robotic refueling mission is, however, Earth-based, and not efficient at all at first glance, so using it as an example of efficiency would be of marginal use at best. My comment was meant to address only the clearly defined, specific method that is given as an example of efficiency, and which is clearly supported and supportable through links to component technologies, and routine calculations. Matthewhburch (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this draft is going to be deleted based on arbitrary judgments rather than the science and math that would be required in article space. I challenge you to discuss it based on the actual, verifiable, clearly provable, irrefutable science and math that the idea is based on? I do not see how describing a clear and obvious, technically and mathematically defendable draft can possibly be considered original work. It is describing something that simply exists, and exists in a format that is clearly defendable by citation and by WP:CALC I welcome rational discussion based on science and math. At this point, anything else is simply a kangaroo court, or a dark ages inquisition. Matthewhburch (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Misplaced Pages is not a place to discuss "actual, verifiable, clearly provable, irrefutable science and math that the idea is based on". If these methods become notable and/or are discussed extensively in reputable sources in the future, it will likely be included in the encyclopaedia, but this essay will not stand a chance at the moment. Please deviate your admirable efforts into improving other articles on Misplaced Pages instead. Misplaced Pages certainly could use knowledgeable editors. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete As I discussed in my decline, the submission reads as a hybrid WP:OR/Research Essay about mid-mission refuelling and it's benefits. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, the article is designed to create a place for technologies that use FUEL for mid-mission refueling. Much like Beam-powered propulsion discusses technologies that use beamed ENERGY for mid-mission acceleration. The two methods are parallel, yet incompatible, and Beam-powered propulsion has it's own page. Should that page then be removed? There is a current day, working example of Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source, specifically the Robotic Refueling Mission. The fact that there is a real method that actually works and has been space-tested should indicate that this methodology of powering space vessels is more important to modern space sciences discussion than Beam-powered propulsion which is not space-tested. At first, the name of the article was a neologism. That has been addressed. There is a huge volume of remote fueling research out there. Nobody's given this class of methods a name yet. That makes it very hard to research using Google. Matthewhburch (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Other Stuff Exists" is a poor reason to argue for inclusion of a specific article. Nobody's given this class of methods a name yet. is a clear indicator that this is original research/not yet notable. Finally, while you guessed correctly about the inspiration for my username, please use my username and not a derivation as derivations of names have been interpeted before as insulting and offensive. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies about the name, Hasteur, I spelled it phonetically, and have corrected the error. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, are you trying to say that a notable sub-element, such as the Robotic Refueling Mission does not justify the creation of a article to discuss the methodology and principles of the element itself? I call upon the article Beam-powered propulsion again here. If an article describing fuel based methods of remotely propelling a vehicle is not appropriate to Misplaced Pages, then an article about beamed energy is also inappropriate. Just because there is no codified name for something does not mean it is unworthy of inclusion. The neologism page clearly explains that not all wiki articles must have clearly defined, short names that you can just plug into Google and get references to. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note to User:Matthewhburch - Wikiversity is an excellent place for actual, verifiable, clearly provable, irrefutable science and mathematics, and almost certainly does not involve deletion discussions like this one. This deletion discussion and its inevitable outcome is merely the result of Misplaced Pages's form and purpose, which are quite different from Wikiversity. Your talents are perhaps more suited to the latter project. For clarity, you would be doing the teaching there, not the learning. There may be other alternative outlets even better suited, but I can't think of them (Wikia is one I often recommend, but has a rather different focus again.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Demiurge1000. I suppose if this article is deleted arbitrarily because it was not allowed to be defended on it's merits, I will take a look at Wikiversity, which will, hopefully based on your comments, be a saner community. I've met a bunch of very smart and helpful people here. I've also met a bunch of very smart and completely useless people here too. I count you firmly in the former category based on the statements above alone. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem you face on WIkipedia is that the article (and thus the draft in preparation) is judged against policy and guidelines, and not on its internal arguments, calculations or merits, at least in the way I believe you mean. We may only accept articles whose asserted facts are verified by independent coverage in reliable sources. We may not accept self evident truth if it is not backed by references. See WP:TRUTH. We are not the same as academe. See WP:ACADEME. WIkipedia is created by, operated by and governed by the wisdom of crowds and consensus. It has flaws, some major, but it is, as they say, what it is. WIkiversity is not more sane. It is simply different.

The problem I'm having here is that the article is very well documented with references and routine math. Routine math should not require references. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like a clear answer here. If this draft is deleted out of draft space, is there any specific requirement that it cannot be introduced into article space where it can be reviewed with attention to the value of the content? Matthewhburch (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• In article space it will be considered against policy and guidelines, as in Draft: space. The same rules apply. Whether it can or cannto be introduced directly as an article will not matter. I have already left you details of the pros and cons of placing it directly into article space on your talk page. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not an answer to the question. The answer to the question is either "Yes" or "No" with a brief supporting explanation.Matthewhburch (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of mushy-arbitrary "help" that set me off to begin with, and started this entire mess. Regardless of the outcome of this deletion fiasco, I would strongly suggest that Wiki implement a policy where every review must also express a clear example of a problem that the editor can act on, and enforce it. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You have had the answer that it is immaterial, backed by an explanation. You appear to exhibit an inability to understand what is said to you. I have now expended sufficient time here to wrote War and Peace. I'm cutting my losses. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I will be clearer, for the benefit of others. Immaterial is not "Yes" or "No" Matthewhburch (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - there's no hope of this becoming an acceptable article. I've had a lengthy and pointless conversation with the author on the draft's talk page and he simply can't get the message. andy (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Will someone who is not TimTrent please provide a clear, unambiguous answer of the type that should be expected of article reviewers? If this draft is deleted, is there a bar to my creating it as an article? Yes, or no. Matthewhburch (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Such a recreation would almost certainly be eligible for speedy deletion via WP:G4. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)