Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward effect


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodward effect

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article violates WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, among others. Non-notable CUSF academic proponent: no notice of the idea outside the cadre of true-believers desperately seeking attention on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep If the effect was really as cool as the article says it would have been written up by the media. I see that a couple of outlets have noticed, better err on the side of caution and keep to see if it takes off. (pun intended :-) )Redddogg (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a promotional article. WillOakland (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Keep: because this is a good article. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: See four new external links to reputable sources. Whether the effect is real or not, it certainly seems to be getting very serious attention. Perhaps someone who knows more about physics than me (almost anyone) will edit the article to provide more balance - but it does seem worth retention. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a few more links. My understanding, and I probably have this totally garbled, is that there are two parts to the subject. The first is the concept that a sub-atomic particle's mass may not be fixed, but may fluctuate around an average, exchanging mass with the surrounding medium. This seems to get guarded acceptance - mathematically possible, apparently not inconsistent with accepted physics. The second is that this effect could be exploited to somehow ratchet a vehicle through space, which gets a lot more skepticism, but which NASA etc. consider worth at least exploring, even if it is a very long shot. Whether either is true is not really the point. Is the topic notable? I think it is, given the references. I also think the view that the Earth is flat is notable, although I am skeptical about the accuracy of this view. Is it a fringe theory? I don't think so. The scientific community seems to be saying "possible, but unlikely" rather than "ridiculous". Clearly, the article should be edited to reflect this general skepticism. It needs an expert. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update to keep per the new sources added for plain raw notability, and to allow science experts to sort out the article. Resend to AFD in 1-2 months if it's not fixed and properly sourced to be compliant with WP:FRINGE and our standards for accuracy. I'll AFD it then again myself. If I forget to review it, I ask anyone to remind me on my talk page in public of my asking for this in about 60-65 days of this AFD closing. It squeaks over the notability line, just barely, at a glance, but needs a firmer review by people that understand the material to see if that's not just an illusion. Adding a lot more external news coverage would certainly help with that to cement it. rootology ( C )( T ) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as above, per WP:FRINGE, etc... Change to no opinion. Eusebeus (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep (scratches head) difficult one this, as we have an unproven theory which is difficult to understand for the average reader, which is (sort of) notable. I wonder that having an article on its own reifies the subject a bit too much (and is hence a tad misleading) and whether a merge to a parent article of some sort is a prudent option so it can be explained in context. Improved to the point it can stand on its own. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fringy, Original research. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if totally rewritten for NPOV, at Rootology suggests--at the moment its very like an advertisement, defending not explaining the theory. I do not really see what this could be merged to. Almost all the sources cited, including those recently added, are quite problematic as very minor conference papers. But other people have worked on the question, so it should get an article.DGG (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Per DGG. Let's see if someone gets curious, reads about this, and trims it down and summarizes it neutrally over the next month. I don't feel comfortable forcing a physics expert to rewrite this, but it seems notable and should get a chance. It is, as Casliber, a bit difficult to make a decision, but bad content shouldn't be merged into good content. II  | (t - c) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this pile of promotional cruft has been around for over two years. Alternative might be a complete rewrite - best done from scratch if notable. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, and AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE Just did a rewrite - see current version of the article. I suspect that my explanation will cause horror and despair in the physics departments. After doing the rewrite my conclusion is that a) the effect is almost certainly non-existent and b) the article is entirely notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * keep - Notable crack pottery. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (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.