Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum propeller

I followed the external link. This looks like voodoo science, like antigravity drives and such. AlainV 04:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unoriginal reasearch, if there is such a thing, by an anon. The external link is to part of a site explaining how flying saucers work. Andrewa 05:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe. The site linked-to is not a kook site.  It's mostly useful information from the founder of Autodesk with a couple of speculative articles such as this.  There is all sorts of weirdness in the vacuum at the quantum level (particles appearing and disappearing and whatnot), and he explicitly states that he's not proposing a violation of conservation laws.  Maybe a better physicist than I am could offer some insight.  Gwimpey 05:14, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Speculative all right, quote: Why do people report such a bewildering variety of objects? Because they're living, space-dwelling creatures. Consider the range of creatures which inhabit the Earth's oceans. The ocean of space is immeasurably more vast and deeper than any planetary ocean. No change of vote. Andrewa 06:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is discussed by particle physicists and cosmologists. Suggest however to move it to Cleanup and have it reviewed and edited by somebody knowledgable in quantum physics. (In my opinion, John Walker of FourmiLab is definitively not a crank.) --Palapala 07:25, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * Keep. (though I'm not sure I've been around long enough for my vote to be significant.) Read his article on demonstrating universal gravitation in your basement, and read the disclaimer where he says everything in the /goldberg directory, including what you quoted Andrewa, is a work of speculative fiction, nothing more. This guy's no kook, he knows his shit. And while that doesn't mean his article on vacuum propulsion doesn't violate conservation of momentum, it isn't entirely clear that it does, either, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on the quality of his other writing. Presuming the original author is not the submitter, perhaps we could appeal to the original author to come to Wikipedia and explain himself directly. Glenn Willen (Talk)   07:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Resolved edit conflict with Palapala.)
 * Comment: The vote is whether we delete this article. Whether this guy is a crank is irrelevant, and I certainly didn't say he was one. Call the article speculative fiction if you like, fine, so what? It's still a delete unless it's significant enough in the literature to be encyclopedic when clearly labelled as that. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research and obscure one. Google returns only 116 hits, when searched for "vacuum propeller", from a small number of websites. (The number of relevant hits is even slightly smaller, because some hits are about a company producing vaccum cleaners.) I do not buy the claim that this is being "discussed by particle physicists and cosmologists", as the google search found almost nothing on university/research sites. Andris 07:55, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [The] vacuum propeller [..] is a hypothetical solution to the rocket problem. Yes, and the perpetuum mobile is a hypothetical solution to the energy problem, manna falling from heaven is a hypothetical solution to the world hunger problem and sanity the is a hypothetical solution to nonsense Wikipedia articles. -- Pjacobi 09:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are articles dealing with perpetuum mobile, manna and sanity; so why not this one? --Palapala 17:51, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research. When space turns out to push back, this will all be science, and then it is encyclopedic.  At present, it is speculation by solo dreamers.  We can applaud their vision without including their visions. Geogre 14:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well put, Geogre! Denni &#9775; 01:03, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting but still original research. Article can be rewritten when it is an established concept published and discussed in multiple forums. If anyone can provide evidence that this is in fact discussed by particle physicists or cosmologists, I will change my vote. Rossami 14:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Propellantless Propulsion has been discussed in the open for years; see e.g. BPP (NASA Breaktrough Propulsion Physics program). --Palapala 09:01, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tentative keep. If you can find one or two more reputable references that this is an openly discussed topic, then I will fully support keeping the article if it is moved to the correct commonly used description. ("Vacuum propeller" is not actually used in the article you cite.)  To me, the only relevant point is proving that this is not original research. As someone elegantly said in an earlier discussion, Stephen Hawking could not publish a new theory on Wikipedia. Rossami 18:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * How about the external links I added to the article today? --Palapala 20:29, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
 * Now a strong keep. Palapala has provided enough credible references to convince me that this is not original research. There should still be a discussion (on the article's talk page) about whether this is the right title for the article. Rossami 22:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - "space screw" says it all - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "somehow push against space itself"? I've got an idea for a rocket that will "somehow generate thrust without using needing fuel". Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think talking about how realistic the science is gets off-track from the real question of whether it's encyclopedia-worthy or not. On the former question, I would point out that zero-point energy, virtual particles, and the Casimir effect are all real phenomena; Stephen Hawking used virtual particles to explain a mechanism by which black holes could radiate (I believe that was in A Brief History of Time), and it is not unreasonable to postulate similar mechansims for virtual-particle propulsion. Energy is still being conserved, and one can frame it in such a way that momentum is as well. The science isn't absurd, though I can understand how people would think it is. As for the second question, of whether it is a subject worthy of an encyclopedia: I prefer to err on the side of keeping information around. Besides, we have an article about the technological singularity, for crying out loud. Tell me that's more worthy than this. Glenn Willen (Talk)   20:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a theory that has the backing of recognized experts in the field, it's original research/pseudoscience. As is Technological singularity, BTW, since it presupposes that we'll be able to create a human-equivalent machine intelligence. Personally, I think if we ever do create an actual intelligence, we'll be completely unimportant to it... - Kenwarren 03:21, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research at best. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 19:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)