Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Repellor vehicle


 * 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 delete, for all the reasons given below. -- The Anome (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Repellor vehicle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original synthesis. S Larctia (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:SYNTH and WP:NEO. -- 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: bollocks AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Per Andy. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Andy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment – This vote does not qualify any rationale for deletion, because it is based upon user AndyTheGrump's citation of an essay as a rationale for deletion. WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No common usage of term. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Andy.--Cerejota (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – This vote does not qualify any rationale for deletion, because it is based upon user AndyTheGrump's citation of an essay as rationale for deletion. WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - yep, Andy said it. Lady  of  Shalott  02:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – This vote does not qualify any rationale for deletion, because it is based upon user AndyTheGrump's citation of an essay as rationale for deletion. WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like OR. Zero google books hits. Zero google scholar hits. Biophys (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The above vote by user User:Sp33dyphil does not address General notability guidelines whatsoever, and appears to be based upon the content within the article rather than the availability of reliable sources. Per Wikipedia General notability guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article may have some forms of WP:SYNTHESIS in it, which would need to be corrected by editing, not deletion of the entire article. The initial rationale for deletion of the article as having or being comprised of "original synthesis" inherent in the article is not enough to qualify blanket deletion. A topic's merits are based upon General notability guidelines regarding reliable sources, not the prose within the article. To start, refer to this simple Google search here. Books exist about the topic, refer to:, and . Here's a link to an article about a repellor tank, which is a type of repellor vehicle: . These sources were found with ease after some simple searches, and there are very likely more sources available. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion, as does using the article's content as qualification for deletion, rather than the availability of sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Wikipedia policy of trying to fix problems in articles by editing them is appropriate for this article. Please refer to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is nothing here worth saving. WP:Blow it up and start over. Also "Repellor vehicle" is a WP:NEO: it does not appear in any journals, and the books using the term are books auto-produced from Wikipedia articles. Oh, and your "repellor tank" link is just a fan-made LEGO toy: it's not a real vehicle. -- 202.124.75.242 (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And "a vehicle (with a human driver or a virtual operator) that steers away from obstacles" is opposed to what exactly: vehicles that deliberately crash into obstacles? There is no coherent topic to this article. -- 202.124.72.156 (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – the rationale above from user 202.124.75.242 about the repellor tank vehicle as not being a "real vehicle" is his or her personal opinion, and is not encyclopedic. Please refer to the definition of "vehicle" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary here, specifically, part 2, ": an agent of transmission : carrier" and part 4, "a means of carrying or transporting something : as
 * a : motor vehicle
 * b : a piece of mechanized equipment.
 * The vehicle stated in the repellor tank article here is definable as a vehicle, per the definition of "vehicle." Repellor vehicles are vehicles that can carry things, and are also inherently vehicles. Secondly, the statement from user 202.124.72.156 that the term "Repellor vehicle" is not stated in any journals isn't qualified with any examples of research to back up this argument. It is very unlikely that stated user has reviewed every journal on the planet to confirm this statement, and the statement is obviously opinion, rather than being based upon facts. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Google Scholar finds nothing. If you have a journal reference, please tell us. And I don't think a "cool LEGO creations" web site is a WP:RS for real vehicles. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – WP:Blow it up and start over listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. It appears that user 202.124.72.156 has not performed any research to validate his or her stance, and is basing his or her argument upon the article's content rather than General notability guidelines regarding the availability of sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Northamerica1000's vehement defence prompted a little more consideration, but in the end I have to !vote to kill this article. The first source Northamerica1000 cites is valid, the second is a wikimirror text, the third makes no mention of the subject in its summary (can't find the main text) and the fourth is, well, as 202.124.72.156 said, a toy. Any usable information in the article would be best merged into Driverless car, Collision detection, Maglev (transport) and a host of other articles, rather than synthed here. Yunshui (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to reiterate, it appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Here is a link already within the article that refers to repellors, based upon empirical research, from the Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC - "Virtual Environment Interaction Techniques.", another reliable source already in the article that verifies content within the article. It seems that there may be some potential bias to simply delete the article, no matter what and for whatever reasons, rather than researching sources to qualify or disqualify the topic, per General notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This source contains only one paragraph which even mentions the concept of repulsion (2.1.1, Object driven). It doesn't say anything about repellor vehicles, only about repulsion as a movement construct in a virtual environment. Yunshui (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The source discussed directly above this comment, "Virtual Environment Interaction Techniques." serves to verify content within the article, and is empirical. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It does, in the sense that it's a word-for-word copivio of a single sentence within the source... Yunshui (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Scratch that, some of the copypasta has inverted commas. Yunshui (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 delete, for all the reasons given below
 * Comment Nevertheless, just because some of the information in the article is sourced doesn't mean the article as a whole needs to be kept. The source does not discuss the concept of repellor vehicles, and hence doesn't work as an argument for a Keep !vote. (I could write an article about my cat and source the fact that "cats are mammals", but that doesn't make my cat notable). Yunshui (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill publication referred to above is a non-peer-reviewed technical report. This does not constitute a WP:RS. It's also manifestly irrelevant to this article, because it's about virtual interaction, not about vehicles in the real world. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS. And I say this again.  WP:BOLLOCKS!.  Despite Northamerica1000's vehement belief that quoting an essay is bad, when that essay conveys the reasoning used to support the !vote, it is a perfectly fine way to express that opinion without typing all that stuff out yet again.  This article is full of original research and synthesis. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - not only Marshall's usual original research and synthesis, but under the title of a neologism he has just made up. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:40, 9 September 2011 (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.