Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IXS Enterprise


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

IXS Enterprise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not, and never will be, anything more than a well-thought-out piece of concept art. While its unveiling attracted a lot of media attention, Wikipedia is not the news and if WP:ONEEVENT can be extended to an article of this nature then it would certainly apply - it is extremely unlikely to ever be heard from again and will be quickly forgotten. If we had an article for every concept design of a spacecraft we would be swamped with them. I cannot see this being notable enough to warrant inclusion, especially in the long term.  W.  D.   Graham  21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is more than a well-thought-out piece of concept art. The article should focus on the ideas and concepts that scientists have come up with, for the development of warp travel. It may sound sci-fi, but many scientists have good reasons to believe that it is not only possible (see references to other wiki pages in the article), but to actually provide a concept design, of how a ship with such capabilities could look like. I agree that it may fade in time, and become irrelevant to actual science and engineering of such spacecraft, but it may also be an image of a real thing that people will work towards. Anyway, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and moderator to be citing rules and practices, so I will agree to any well founded decision that will be reached by the community. Capilleary (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, to the user above me, you're suggesting a keep, correct? Sabhansali (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep I agree with Capilleary. It is a well thought out concept which incorporates actual physics and experimentation being done by NASA. The article isn't only about the concept art, either. It shows other information about the concept, such as experiments being done and the amount of energy that it would potentially require. It's the first of its kind to be proposed by a large scientific entity (NASA). White has been experimenting with the entire concept since 2010. I firmly believe that it should have its own Wikipedia page in order to inform people of the concept and what it encompasses. Copulative (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I definitely propose that Wikipedia keeps this article. It's a representation of some of the work that NASA has been doing for multiple years now. If it was just concept art, then I would agree with you; however, as the user above me stated, it encompasses the entire concept, including the physics, of White's proposed theoretical warp drive technology. I'd also like to point out that you cited the WP:NOTNEWS article. It says not to post the following: Journalism, news reports, "who's who," and diaries. The IXS Enterprise concept is none of those. Sure, it was reported by the news, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a fully scientific concept that has had hundreds if not thousands of hours put into it by both the physicists and the artists. For these reasons I propose that the article is not deleted. Sabhansali (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable flash in the pan. Fails both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTJOURNAL. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 06:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Torritorri, I already explained why this does not fall under the scope of WP:NOTNEWS in my previous post. Additionally, I do not believe that it falls under any of the nine categories for WP:NOTJOURNAL. I see both of your arguments as invalid. Sabhansali (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It is most definitely not a flash in the pan but an ongoing embodiment of the work of a NASA project, the physics of FTL transport and the brainchild of one of the founders of Project Icarus - an International Organization of leading scientist and engineers dedicated to starship R & D.ArtKocsis (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. It's a spacecraft concept, which, while might never get built (and very likely never will be), it is something created in all seriousness to demonstrate a concept viability (and for PR purposes as well, true). There are other articles on Wikipedia that are similarly about a concept for a spacecraft that also are quite unlikely to ever get built (Nautilus-X comes to mind). If anything, I'd suggest finding more information and expanding, or if this article REALLY needs to go, merging with another apropriate article on the warp field subject. --JamesFKirk (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The user above me has a great point. If IXS Enterprise has to go, why should Nautilus-X be allowed to stay? They are both conceptual spacecrafts. Plain and simple. Sabhansali (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep This is not just concept art. The image is an engineering model of the status of current theoretical efforts to advance the possibility and state of FTL transport. The subject matter and discussion is about active research and results by leading scientists and engineers that have been ongoing for over forty years.

If anything, the article needs to be expanded with discussions of the scientific basis of design details (for example, the modification of the "doughnuts" reduced the estimated energy requirements from 2x10^27 kg to 700 kg rest mass equivalent), and with additional external links (for example, to Icarus Interstellar).ArtKocsis (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep Better than anything come up with so far and represents a fusion of BTEDan's "Enterprise" with the current state of the art on FTL propulsion concepts. My own work suggests White is on the right track and as such this deserves to see the light of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.204.224 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep More than just concept art. Obviously it's a (very) long-term project, but NASA is taking the science behind it seriously. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus Alright, so I believe we can agree that this article needs to be expanded upon rather than deleted. Copulative (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

KEEP This article is well sourced, notable, and quite frankly, it is a very good article compared to some that I've seen. I would also like to add that if Wikipedia is going to start trashing concept art as unencyclopedic, then I think in order to be consistent, older concepts should be nominated as well such as The Illinois, a supertall skyscraper that was intended to be a mile high and never built. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC))

Keep This design has been produced by a qualified engineer in concert with graphic artists. NASA are willing to be associated with such an activity and as such its no less serious than the Hundred Year Starship program at DARPA. 11:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.11.20 (talk)

KEEP There is no reason at all why this should be deleted while other conceptual projects, such as the ones users above me mentioned, should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh SB (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.