Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop ring

--41.177.57.76 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)--41.177.57.76 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)--41.177.57.76 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)--41.177.57.76 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)--41.177.57.76 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE. This has been done already. Note that Bishop Ring was not in question here. dbenbenn | talk 00:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bishop ring
Appears to be a bit of fancruft from a sci-fi website/RPG - see. &mdash;Stormie 10:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Also Bishop Ring is another article on the same topic, a superior one to be sure, but also imho not encyclopedic. &mdash;Stormie 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Merge & redirect both to Orion's Arm is perfectly satisfactory for me, also. --Stormie 02:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with Culture Orbital if canon. Delete if not. Uncle G 12:04, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Bishop Ring gives a clearer context for it - no, it's not Iain M. Banks canon. &mdash;Stormie 19:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to pope hat and... just kidding. Delete Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I created a new Bishop Ring article, which may be confused with an old article that was deleted, or with the poorly-written Bishop ring article. The new version is encyclopedic. Hold your fire until you've actually read it, please :). I've been searching for non-OA papers on the subject, as it looks like a term they swiped from elsewhere. --Christopher Thomas 20:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: They did a good enough write-up that SPIE accepted it for publication (or rather, their paper on suitable light sources to put in the middle of their rings, which was a pretty sneaky way of getting the topic into the conference). I'd say that counts as an adequate paper trail. Abstracts for that particular section: . It's unclear whether this particular journal is peer-reviewed, though this does look like proceedings from a conference held in August 2001.--Christopher Thomas 20:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both for lack of evidence of peer-review, original research, this as a dupe. Wyss 20:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you delete everything that isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, you'll lose about 98% of Wikipedia. What would you consider suitable research? I'll be happy to find it for you. As for the original poorly-written bishop ring article by another user, I vote that it be redirected to Bishop Ring.--Christopher Thomas 20:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, when it comes to descriptions of physical phenomena, peer reviewed topics are encyclopedic, original research (spot on or cranky) is not. Wyss 22:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of doing a full literature search for this type of structure. It's definitely been written about; it's finding the references that is time-consuming. So far most references assume a structure with similar properties that's centered on either Earth or the Sun. I'm also kind of curious as to why you're asking for a literature search for a science fiction habitat, especially when Culture Orbital doesn't have one. --Christopher Thomas 23:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a literature search. I've voted to delete the article. Wyss 01:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A literature search that finds appropriate references would render your objections invalid. I'm _still_ wondering why you consider the article unacceptable in the first place, but have no problems with other articles about similar structures with less backing material. Care to give a more detailed answer on this?--Christopher Thomas 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence this structure exists, the idea for it got started in SciFi fiction (not theoretical physics), the article is misleading, the topic is trivial cruft and it reads like a joke, for starters. Wyss 08:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea for a rotating ring habitat was proposed by Wernher von Braun in 1952, and revisited in the Stanford torus thought experiment funded by NASA. While the name "Bishop Ring" appears to have been an invention of the Orion's Arm group, calling the Bishop Ring version of the article (as opposed to bishop ring) "trivial cruft" about a "nonexistent" idea is, frankly, incorrect enough to make me wonder if you so much as _skimmed_ literature on space station concepts before deciding this article was a waste of space. I can accept redirection to "Stanford Torus" as an interim measure, though the Torus was proposed as a much smaller structure. I'll create a new article about feasible megastructure-scale ring colonies once I have a few peer-reviewed paper citations to quiet most of the objections voiced here. I agree that "Bishop Ring" probably isn't a good name for the article, but it continues to disturb me that most of the people posting here prefer to delete an article out of hand rather than change it to something they like, or merge the few bits they feel have merit with other more appropriate articles. Deletion is for articles that are completely inappropriate or meritless. Heck, if any of you had proposed blanking the article and making it a redirect to Stanford torus, I probably wouldn't even have blinked. I am always open to constructive suggestions for alteration; however, the only one offered to date was JoaoRicardo's stub tag change. The rest has been nothing but aggressive confrontation (with varying degrees of politeness, which I do recognize and respect).--Christopher Thomas 05:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My wording was only an artifact of the heavily qualified language I use on these VfDs, and was meant to separate the article topic from reality. From an encyclopedic perspective, IMO the topic is trivial cruft. From a SciFi perspective, it might work has a "hard science fiction" plot device. I'm not aware that WP is an "encyclopedia of science fiction". Wyss 13:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I question your placement of the dividing line between "science fiction" and "hypothetical engineering project that nobody's built". Why do you not object to space elevator or any of the various space fountain proposals? I can certainly see you objecting to the _term_ "Bishop Ring", but there is ample literature (mostly cited from the pages linked from Stanford torus) about ring-shaped space colonies. Thus, I challenge your assertion that there is nothing of technical merit in the version of Bishop Ring I posted. The distinction between science and science fiction is that science fiction either a) makes propositions that irreconcilably violate known physical laws or b) has no reflection in publications by the scientific community. Neither applies to the article I wrote (though I can, as mentioned earlier, see arguments for folding it into other space habitat articles).--Christopher Thomas 20:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If those articles showed up on VfD I might vote to delete them too, but at the moment we're talking about this one. I disagree with your opinion on the difference between science and science fiction, but even that's not related to this VfD. Further, I never said "there is nothing of technical merit" in the article you posted. I said it was fiction, not science. Fancruft can be wonderful, but it's usually not encyclopedic. Wyss 20:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you believe that there _is_ content in my version of the article that _does_ have technical merit, then why didn't you suggest that it be merged with a more suitable parent article, rather than deleting it? Or that any non-redundant fancruft components be merged into the Orion's Arm article? I asked this several paragraphs ago, and still didn't get an answer from you. Surely you agree that if an article _does_ have any salvageable components, they should be salvaged and put somewhere more suitable?--Christopher Thomas 20:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither did I say I thought it did have technical merit. I said it was fiction. Another problem I have with the article is it doesn't make that clear at all, which will mislead some readers. I also noticed the article's author has muddled the contraction it's with the possessive its :) As for any merge, I don't see much point in that but please keep in mind I don't assert myself as any final authority, only one vote. You could always edit the Orion's Arm article yourself, add what you like, then see if it's accepted. Wyss 21:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Forgot to credit Rossami's merge suggestion as constructive as well. Apologies for the omission.--Christopher Thomas 05:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Christopher, in deciding where to redirect, I believe it is important to think what someone who typed or followed a link to this article would like to know about. (This is my opinion, not Wikipedia policy.) If the expression "bishop ring" is only found in one specific science fiction work, or in one specific series of works (eg. Asimov's Foundation series, Star Trek series etc.) then it probably should redirect to that work or series, where there should be a discussion of the space habitat as it applies to that work. There we could include a link to other article that discuss the same concept in real life. If however this is used in many works of sci-fi and/or in academic papers as well, than we should redirect to a more "real-life" article, like Stanford torus as you suggested. The current article doesn't establish either position. Could you clarify this for us? JoaoRicardo 05:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's looking like a redirect to Orion's Arm would probably be the most approriate, as they appear to be the only place that actually used the term Bishop Ring to refer to this type of structure. I'm thinking about adding a "types of megastructure featured in this work" section to the OA page. The material about real life limits to Stanford torus-like structures can be shelved until I have refereed literature references for it. I know where to look (late 70s, early 80s, when the structures were in vogue and whisker fibers were fashionable), but don't have them on-hand, so such an article would just be VFDd as either primary source or sci-fi, depending on who's VFDing it. Link to Stanford torus can go into the OA page, as a part of my intended edit.--Christopher Thomas 06:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. JoaoRicardo 03:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm after User:Christopher Thomas arguments. JoaoRicardo 08:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Give me a coherent explanation of why Ringworld and Culture Orbital aren't "fancruft" before throwing epithets around, please. If you think this should be a sci-fi page, well and good, but "topic change" != "deletion".--Christopher Thomas 03:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an epithet, it's WP/VfD jargon for trivial, unencyclopedic. Wyss 10:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. As appointed by Wyss, that is jargon for something in which only hardcore fans would be interested. The Simpsons is a worthy article, but an article on, for instance, an expression Bart used in episode 34 of the 6th season is fancruft. Only hardocre Simpsons fans would be interested in something so specific. Ringworld is an article on an apparently notable sci-fi novel, and therefore is not restricted to fans. However Culture Orbital does seem to me to be fancruft. It could be merged into The Culture. And i didn't changed the topic of Bishop Ring, I merely replaced the with a  because I think this would be more likely to be expanded by a science fiction enthusiast than by a scientist who doesn't care for science fiction. You can replace it if you want, or you can readd the  and leave both. JoaoRicardo 00:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not science, it's fiction. Wyss 01:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since it seems to be discussed (almost?) exclusively in the context of Orion's Arm and since that article is not yet overly large, is there a reason not to merge and redirect both versions? Rossami (talk) 04:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm, per Rossami's suggestion. A google query for "Bishop Ring" +orbital returns only 12 unique hits and a few of those don't seem relevant. This should not have its own article. Carrp | Talk 13:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Bishop Ring or Orion's Arm --Neigel von Teighen 21:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've finished merging the fictional part of Bishop Ring (which amounts to all of bishop ring) into Orion's Arm. Keep or redirect the Bishop Ring article as you see fit. If Bishop Ring is still around after the VFD for bishop ring, I'll end up redirecting it some time before writing up a citation-rich article on ring habitats. I'm reluctant to modify Bishop Ring while a vote is still in progress.--Christopher Thomas 03:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. ComCat 02:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm. Megan1967 03:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm. JamesBurns 08:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.