Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electropropulsion
- 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 of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Electropropulsion
Originally tagged with {{prod}} with the reason, "Original Research and is not neutral point of view". It was later tagged with a {{prod2}} by another editor. While this might be a real term (314 ghits[1]), this article does not appear to be about the real thing. It's a soapbox for an opinion. Agent 86 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possible speedy as patent nonsense and blatant hoax. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this mod used on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-gravitic_propulsion In pseudophysics, electro-gravitic propulsion refers to claims made at certain websites regarding supposed devices And I did say speculation, a valid genre at Borders, which covers pseudophysics if you will. Is pseudophysics good enough for your approval. And speculation is used throughout.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teslafieldmachine (talk • contribs) The first paragraph now reads: Electropropulsion, in pseudophysics, refers to claims made at certain websites regarding supposed devices which could be used to drive a spacecraft. Some websites which promulgate these claims sometimes include the additional claims that UFOs are alien spacecraft and are operated by such alleged devices. It is claimed to be sought at the turn of the twentieth century by Tesla.(1) I hereby speculate that it does exist, just as the anti-gravity speculation does, without seeing proof. The following is speculation with a bit of electrical physics.
Its a hoax that Tesla's patents are clues to his solid aether device as speculators have suggested then I will remove that part and fix up the rest.
- Delete, hoax, borderline patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR, at the very least. Tevildo 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - looks like cut and paste. Artw 23:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ufo+propulsion&go=Go try that, a search for ufo propulsion.... might I say the same for each one, is it alien anti-gravity vs. Tesla's solid aether... identified in referenced source. Which do you like, I will say nonsense to your favorite ufo propulsion... Teslafieldmachine 03:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A hoax that the patents are clues might be true, but parts in the patents might be parts in a high frequency high voltage unknown devise because the what he mostly deals with. It would be wrong to say you could find the specific device or what you are pointing out. I did not think that came across, it is not the intent. I did not say build a ufo propulsion from Tesla's patents. Only that they might be use or might hold clues. That flat coil always botheres me, why make a coil like that. Teslafieldmachine 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as patent nonsense. Gerry Ashton 03:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the beef boys, you just can't come along and say delete. I am not funning with this post, did you read the sources. Its not nonsense and Tesla's patents stand.. Wikipedia will not delete something real. Teslafieldmachine 05:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Teslafieldmachine. The main grounds for our opinion that this article should be deleted is that it constitutes Original Research. As you say yourself, it's your own speculation about a possible method of UFO propulsion. There are plenty of sites which will be more than happy to publish your article, but Wikipedia is, or should be, restricted to verifiable facts from secondary sources - your article is a primary source, and therefore not acceptable here. This isn't a reflection on you personally or on the subject matter of the article. Tevildo 10:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My speculation, no it was all reference (1). It would be psudo at any stretch of the imagination. I went too far in explaining the ideas in (1) so that it went astray of what might be a three liner like electro-gravity was. I see that, I leave it to posters more experienced with Wikipedia policies and format. Thanks for your concern. Teslafieldmachine 13:35, 28 June 2006 (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.