Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete, seconding the suggestion made during the discussion that this material might well be accepted at Wikiversity, which unlike Wikipedia is willing to accept original research. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source


No significant claim of notability and lacking sources to back up the claim. Instead of being here and attempting to improve this draft, the original author has decided to go on an attack of WikiProject Articles for creation. You can see the resulting drama on the projects talk page. Normally such drafts would be given some leeway to allow the author to improve the draft to a level that could have a 50% or better chance of passing an AfD, this case is an exception to that because the author apparently isn't interested in improving the draft. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The author isn't interested in improving the draft? I invite anyone to go look at the original article, and the current article, and try to say that with a straight face.  Of course, arbitrary, kangaroo court decisions are easier, aren't they?  My biggest problem with Wiki right now is that there seems to be some sort of "consensus of the lazy" which encourages editors to simply drop a rejection notice in a draft and walk away, while giving no actionable input.  When given actionable input, I acted.  This is extremely clear and obvious if you were to bother to take a look at the development of the draft.  But you probably won't.  Deleting this article arbitrarily is an insult to everything Wikipedia stands for. Matthewhburch (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You sure do like to throw that word arbitrary around a lot when you're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Quite simply, as you've been told multiple times, there are insufficient reliable sources to back up your claims of notability.  While it is a very interesting draft, it is all original research in that you haven't cited enough credible peer reviewed journals to back up any of the claims in the draft.  I encourage you to spend some time scouring these types of journals and adding appropriate in-line citations to your draft (You've got about 6 days left to make some serious progress in the way of credible sources.  While you have been working hard today to make the tone of the article more encyclopedic by changing things like "we" and "our" and whatnot to more neutral phrases, you're still not addressing the lack of sources issue.  Surely there must be some scientific journals with articles on this topic somewhere (that you'd have to find as most are likely paid subscriptions to which we do not have access in general unless we are pointed to a specific journal then we can find someone with access to confirm it).  Anyways, if you were to focus as much time and energy on finding more sources as you do on insisting this is a good encyclopedic article, it probably would be a good article and we wouldn't be here and it would already be accepted. I suggest you read what Wikipedia is all about and learn the golden rule. Good luck, it's in your hands now! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 00:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Arbitrary' does a pretty good job of summing up nominating an article for deletion because the author (paraphrase) "doesn't want to improve it" when the entire reason for the article coming to anyone's attention to begin with is because they were deleting visible comments that were already addressed, and comments which contained nothing addressable. Neither of which was against Wikipedia policy.  I suppose 'specious' might be a better term to use for your reasoning for nominating this article for deletion.  'Reasonable' would be a good term to use to describe removing this article from consideration for deletion. Matthewhburch (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't it the author's actions that are the problem, rather than this draft? The draft will languish in Draft space in its current state and be of no harm to man or beast. If the author decides to move it to main article space then there are more powerful tools, such as AfD, to put a stop to it. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I'll wait for the inevitable AfD nomination and that should get it permanently deleted from mainspace. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The author has said "However, it is not possible to reference any other document on the specific method that demonstrates a practical method, except the one I have written, because that specific subset of Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source has never been published. However, since it is a method of using existing technologies, defining the existing technologies that can be used to implement the method clearly define the method itself." at the Teahouse questions page in this revision, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. This says to me that, regardless of any other matter, it is WP:OR and an unreferencable non notable topic on which an essay has been written. In my rejection of the draft here I stated as much and left a more detailed comment. I will be pleased to be proven incorrect and for sufficient references to be found to render thsi suitable for inclusion, but can, at present, see no hope of that. I am ignoring the author's idiosyncrasies in placing this opinion Fiddle   Faddle  19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that despite the fact that there is no codified name for "remote fueling" spaceflight propulsion methods, there is a great deal of remote fuel research that has been done, including a real world application called Robotic Refueling Mission The robotic refueling mission is, however, Earth-based, and not efficient at all at first glance, so using it as an example of efficiency would be of marginal use at best. My comment was meant to address only the clearly defined, specific method that is given as an example of efficiency, and which is clearly supported and supportable through links to component technologies, and routine calculations. Matthewhburch (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this draft is going to be deleted based on arbitrary judgments rather than the science and math that would be required in article space. I challenge you to discuss it based on the actual, verifiable, clearly provable, irrefutable science and math that the idea is based on? I do not see how describing a clear and obvious, technically and mathematically defendable draft can possibly be considered original work. It is describing something that simply exists, and exists in a format that is clearly defendable by citation and by WP:CALC I welcome rational discussion based on science and math. At this point, anything else is simply a kangaroo court, or a dark ages inquisition. Matthewhburch (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Wikipedia is not a place to discuss "actual, verifiable, clearly provable, irrefutable science and math that the idea is based on". If these methods become notable and/or are discussed extensively in reputable sources in the future, it will likely be included in the encyclopaedia, but this essay will not stand a chance at the moment. Please deviate your admirable efforts into improving other articles on Wikipedia instead. Wikipedia certainly could use knowledgeable editors. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As I discussed in my decline, the submission reads as a hybrid WP:OR/Research Essay about mid-mission refuelling and it's benefits. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, the article is designed to create a place for technologies that use FUEL for mid-mission refueling. Much like Beam-powered propulsion discusses technologies that use beamed ENERGY for mid-mission acceleration.  The two methods are parallel, yet incompatible, and Beam-powered propulsion has it's own page.  Should that page then be removed?  There is a current day, working example of Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source, specifically the Robotic Refueling Mission.  The fact that there is a real method that actually works and has been space-tested should indicate that this methodology of powering space vessels is more important to modern space sciences discussion than Beam-powered propulsion which is not space-tested.  At first, the name of the article was a neologism.  That has been addressed. There is a huge volume of remote fueling research out there.  Nobody's given this class of methods a name yet.  That makes it very hard to research using Google. Matthewhburch (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Other Stuff Exists" is a poor reason to argue for inclusion of a specific article. Nobody's given this class of methods a name yet. is a clear indicator that this is original research/not yet notable. Finally, while you guessed correctly about the inspiration for my username, please use my username and not a derivation as derivations of names have been interpeted before as insulting and offensive. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies about the name, Hasteur, I spelled it phonetically, and have corrected the error. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, are you trying to say that a notable sub-element, such as the Robotic Refueling Mission does not justify the creation of a article to discuss the methodology and principles of the element itself? I call upon the article Beam-powered propulsion again here.  If an article describing fuel based methods of remotely propelling a vehicle is not appropriate to Wikipedia, then an article about beamed energy is also inappropriate.  Just because there is no codified name for something does not mean it is unworthy of inclusion.  The neologism page clearly explains that not all wiki articles must have clearly defined, short names that you can just plug into Google and get references to. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to User:Matthewhburch - Wikiversity is an excellent place for actual, verifiable, clearly provable, irrefutable science and mathematics, and almost certainly does not involve deletion discussions like this one. This deletion discussion and its inevitable outcome is merely the result of Wikipedia's form and purpose, which are quite different from Wikiversity. Your talents are perhaps more suited to the latter project. For clarity, you would be doing the teaching there, not the learning. There may be other alternative outlets even better suited, but I can't think of them (Wikia is one I often recommend, but has a rather different focus again.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Demiurge1000. I suppose if this article is deleted arbitrarily because it was not allowed to be defended on it's merits, I will take a look at Wikiversity, which will, hopefully based on your comments, be a saner community.  I've met a bunch of very smart and helpful people here.  I've also met a bunch of very smart and completely useless people here too.  I count you firmly in the former category based on the statements above alone. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem you face on WIkipedia is that the article (and thus the draft in preparation) is judged against policy and guidelines, and not on its internal arguments, calculations or merits, at least in the way I believe you mean. We may only accept articles whose asserted facts are verified by independent coverage in reliable sources. We may not accept self evident truth if it is not backed by references. See WP:TRUTH. We are not the same as academe. See WP:ACADEME. WIkipedia is created by, operated by and governed by the wisdom of crowds and consensus. It has flaws, some major, but it is, as they say, what it is. WIkiversity is not more sane. It is simply different.
 * The problem I'm having here is that the article is very well documented with references and routine math. Routine math should not require references.  Matthewhburch (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like a clear answer here. If this draft is deleted out of draft space, is there any specific requirement that it cannot be introduced into article space where it can be reviewed with attention to the value of the content? Matthewhburch (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In article space it will be considered against policy and guidelines, as in Draft: space. The same rules apply. Whether it can or cannto be introduced directly as an article will not matter. I have already left you details of the pros and cons of placing it directly into article space on your talk page. Fiddle   Faddle  21:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer to the question. The answer to the question is either "Yes" or "No" with a brief supporting explanation.Matthewhburch (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the type of mushy-arbitrary "help" that set me off to begin with, and started this entire mess. Regardless of the outcome of this deletion fiasco, I would strongly suggest that Wiki implement a policy where every review must also express a clear example of a problem that the editor can act on, and enforce it.  Matthewhburch (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have had the answer that it is immaterial, backed by an explanation. You appear to exhibit an inability to understand what is said to you. I have now expended sufficient time here to wrote War and Peace. I'm cutting my losses. Fiddle   Faddle  22:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be clearer, for the benefit of others. Immaterial is not "Yes" or "No" Matthewhburch (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Will someone who is not TimTrent please provide a clear, unambiguous answer of the type that should be expected of article reviewers? If this draft is deleted, is there a bar to my creating it as an article? Yes, or no. Matthewhburch (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's no hope of this becoming an acceptable article. I've had a lengthy and pointless conversation with the author on the draft's talk page and he simply can't get the message. andy (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Such a recreation would almost certainly be eligible for speedy deletion via WP:G4. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will hope that you are attempting to inject humor here, Demiurge1000. However your response is not an answer.  Matthewhburch (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to dash your hopes.
 * It's not wholly clear to me what sort of answer you are looking for; but yes, if you are not blocked from editing at the time the draft is deleted, there would be no technical impediment (that is currently in place...) to your immediately recreating the same material directly in article space. Such a recreation would be subject to speedy deletion under WP:G4 as I have already explained. In addition, some editors might regard such a recreation, in these present circumstances, as WP:DISRUPTive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a yes or no answer. I still didn't get one, but your answer was sufficiently unambiguous that I was able to determine that the answer is "No"  What happens after that would probably be another deletion argument.  I appreciate the answer.  Matthewhburch (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, another deletion discussion would not be needed, it could be immediately deleted without discussion, and if you recreate the article immediately after deletion and continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing or the target page could be protected to prevent recreation. But to answer your "yes or no" question, no. There is no technical block preventing this, because Wikipedia editors are usually trusted to use good judgement in editing. Just because you technically can doesn't mean you should or that it wouldn't be immediately deleted, however. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aoidh, there is still plenty of room for changes in the article. It will be improved before resubmission, if it is deleted.  I have no objection to improving the article.  I have an objection to reviewers creating their own rules and rejecting articles with no actionable statements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewhburch (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it amazingly ironic that this draft was nominated for deletion here: based on Technical 13's belief that I'm not interested in improving the article, when in fact the entire reason that I ended up there, and now here is that I refused to allow already-addressed or unactionable commentary to be left on the draft. Reviewers objected to my removing the old documentation from the visible page, and when I was requested to allow it to remain, I asked for the rule. So, since there was no rule, they chose to try to retroactively create a rule, and because I'm objecting to it, here I am. I am more than willing to improve this draft. Provided that I get actionable input. Stating that I am not, is simply untrue, which can easily be verified by looking at the difference in the page between when it was created, and now. Matthewhburch (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC) After several hours, no comment yet that is actionable. If you can look at that article and see something wrong with it, then tell me what it is. Don't throw alphabet soup at me WP:WFTBBQ or whatever, because it's pretty obvious that I'm not getting what you are talking about. A specific problem. A specific example. Within the draft. If you cannot provide a specific, actionable problem for me to address, end this farce. You do not need to find ALL the problems. Just one will do, to demonstrate this problem that you refer to. Unless of course the purpose of your ambiguity is to prevent me from showing that I want to improve the draft by making certain that I remain ignorant of why you believe there is a problem with it? Matthewhburch (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been made abundantly clear by multiple editors in multiple places what is wrong with the draft, and what you need to do to fix it. This "I can't hear you" tactic hasn't worked very well for most of the people who have tried it before, and I don't expect it will work much better for you.  Anyways, good luck! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 01:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I can't hear you, is because you aren't saying anything. Point at something specific in the article that is wrong, like other useful people have done, and I'll fix it. If you can't point out what causes you concern, then it's arbitrary.Matthewhburch (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just it Matt, the whole draft is currently a problem. That's what "there is substantial claim of notability" means... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet again, an arbitrary answer, Technical 13. A non-arbitrary response would be something like: "I saw that you failed to reference your statement that 33% of all Wikipedia editors provide arbitrary responses.  Provide a reference." Instead, I see something like : "unreferenced data - plonk"  Matthewhburch (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may, at this point Technical 13 and others are looking for reliable sources about the subject. Specifically, they (we) would like to see "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" about "Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source" itself. I have read above your belief that basic math should cover it, but our policies strictly prohibit that for a number of reasons. Likewise, defending an article on its merits is forbidden. (I can go into these reasons, if you like, although a thorough discussion is probably outside the scope of this deletion discussion.) In order for a subject to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, we need multiple reliable sources to cover that very specific subject. And I do mean "very specific": to use an analogy, journalistic coverage of a band may qualify that band for an article, but not their individual members or their albums or their hit songs, only that band. I know it may sound odd, but the Wikipedia community edits by consensus and that's how we've decided to do things. So what we're looking for right now are reliable sources, and if you have any then we can certainly discuss them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here if they're about this specific deletion discussion, or on my Talk page if they're about Wikipedia in general. Feel free to pick my brain. I'll be as thorough as possible. But I should have gone to bed hours ago so please forgive me if I don't respond right away. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - under its original title there were exactly zero non-wikipedia google hits. Says it all, really. andy (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP:NEO clearly indicates that it is possible to have a notable subject that is not clearly defined with a catch phrase, and must be defined in much longer terms.
 * Secondly, I simply do not understand how something that is obvious, verifiable, clearly important, and easily provable is not notable. It's clear that I am not able to understand whatever it is that the reviewers have running through their heads.  The band example completely blows my mind.  If that is truly what Wikipedia means by notable, then it's completely foreign to anything resembling logic.  If the band is notable, then the band members who contributed significantly must be, and their songs that earned them notability must be too.  Their constituent members, and the meaningful outcome of their work.  The band would not be notable if it had no members.  The band would not be notable if it performed no music.  This notion about what 'notable' means is daft.  If I choose to create any other drafts, I'll try to remember that Wikipedia means 'famous' when they say 'notable'  I'm afraid to even ask what Wikipedia thinks 'famous' means.  Delete the draft.  Matthewhburch (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously think you're in a majority of one and can't understand why everyone is against you. So why don't you read the rules, which explain the whole thing very clearly? If you don't like the way wikipedia manages itself that's a shame but hey, nobody died. You seem think that placing an article on wikipedia is a human right. It's not. Wikipedia is a collective endeavour that runs itself according to its own rules. There are other endeavours elsewhere with different rules - you could even start one yourself if you wanted. The web, and wikipedia in particular, is not a democracy. andy (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I was pretty clear in the statement above, but I'll say it again. I just realized that 'notable' means 'famous' on Wikipedia.  What I proposed is not famous, so the article needs to be deleted.  If 'notable' actually meant 'notable' then I might argue more.  But it doesn't so the point is moot. Matthewhburch (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Of note, is attempting to speedy delete the draft under CSD:G7. Based on my previous experience and knowledge that multiple editors have contributed in the form of AFC declines and AFC comments, CSD:G7 is not appropriate. I have removed and explained why, yet Matthew refuses to understand. I have claimed the Patent vandalism exemption once, and would appreciate it if other editors would watch the page so that Matthew does not get to avoid this consensus discussion only to come back and start again. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been watching,, and you kept beating me to the revert... I'm sure there's no admin that would delete it under and CSD right now.  2b or not 2b, that would be the question.  Although, an admin might decide to perform an early close of this discussion per IAR and just delete it and end this drama and put poor Matt out of his misery of being dragged through this whole process simply because he apparently doesn't want to spend the time to dig up the journals and citeable sources that would establish this topic's notability.  Now he's on a kick of thinking it's a popularity contest, and still isn't understanding that it just needs peer reviewed sources to back up the claims. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am requesting deletion here because, despite the draft being about a notable topic under the definition of notable that the rest of the world uses, I'm in Wikipedia's world now, and the draft isn't notable. The class of methods I describe has not been codified in any journals, though it's clearly a notable grouping of methods.  The individual methods themselves were already linked.  The technologies clearly defining an efficient method were all documented.  Few people have ever heard of this stuff before, and it's difficult to find references on it.  My prior references were not considered notable, future references would be similarly non-notable because they would be similar in nature.  I've spent two years digging into remote fuel methods.  It's a sparse field.  Not famous enough for Wikipedia. Matthewhburch (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This whole drama, here and elsewhere, has been fairly tl;dr but if I understand all of this correctly, it would have been much less painful for everyone involved to say (a) Yes, Matt, policy will allow you at this point to create an article in mainspace (b) I got ten bucks that it says it will be deleted within 200 hours of you doing so, probably on WP:NOT/WP:OR grounds.  Had we done so from the start, we'd be done already, the article would have been deleted, and much gnashing of teeth and RfC drafting would likely have been avoided.  The temptation to get pulled into drama like this is understandable, but at some point, if people want to jump off the "safe space" (and Matt, I hear you laugh, fair enough) of AfC into mainspace, it is far, far simpler to let them. I plan no further contribution to this thread, but if anyone has questions, my talk page is open.  Best,  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually finding it deliciously ironic, and amusing at this point.
 * The draft was nominated for deletion because in the views of one wrong person, I didn't want to improve it.
 * I asked clear answers to questions, and got a bunch of misdirection, when a simple "yes" or "no" would do.
 * I asked for help understanding what I was missing, and got a bunch of useless alphabet soup spam and random noise, until someone finally made me understand that 'notable' really means 'famous' in Wikipedia.
 * Once I understood that Wikipedia has bastardized the term 'notable', I understood that my draft really doesn't belong here.
 * I requested deletion here, and on the draft page.
 * Now comes the funny part. It's clear that, should I wish to do so, I could simply recreate the article and fight it again.
 * Despite that, Hasteur has chosen to interfere with my WP:G7 deletion of the draft page.
 * To be clear, deleting it myself, or deleting it here will have the exact same end result.
 * But Hasteur has chosen to be a big man and take control to make sure the page is deleted his way, like a child insisting that they be the only one to kick the sandcastle when it is time to leave the beach.
 * After I realized what he was doing, and that I was falling right into it, I laughed for several minutes.
 * I now have a much better feel for the reviewer community.
 * I will not try to create an article again unless I'm writing about something famous, err, 'notable'.
 * In the end, the main Wikipedia space is actually much safer for me, because things make sense there. I'll let other people deal with trying to figure out what 'notable' means next week.
 * Again, to be clear, I request deletion here, immediately. I am the originator of the draft, it's sole meaningful contributor, and it's only defender.  Matthewhburch (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The statements in the last sentence there seem true. I have requested speedy deletion under WP:G7. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , I'm no longer replying to Matt here either as I feel it is a lost cause. You seem to have gotten sucked into the drama here yourself, otherwise I would have just suspected that based on the unanimous delete !vote you would have performed an early close and just deleted it instead of commenting.  Perhaps the next administrator might do that? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Except for Matthewhburch's desire to delete this I would say "keep, for lack of a reason to delete as a draft."  But since it will never survive AFD as an article (and I'd nominate it myself very quickly) AND since the only person who seems interested in supporting this as a future article wants it gone, I'm going to say Delete in the spirit of db-author.  However, if any editor comes out and says they will work on getting this to a point that it will have a 50/50 shot at surviving AFD as an article, then consider my !vote changed to "keep" for lack of a reason to delete it.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There appear to be quite a few NASA articles on this available through JSTOR. Matt and I are finally making some progress on identifying possible sources to cite this article to and I'm helping him try and get it to at least a reasonable stub status.  There are still a few days before this MfD is set to expire, unless an admin closes it early (which I don't expect at this point due to the recent progress on identifying RS to be used), so we'll see what can be done in the next 4-5 days and I'll ping all of the delete votes here if I think we've managed to get it to a salvageable point before this MfD is due to expire.  Due to the overwhelming support, it would be inappropriate for me to withdraw my nomination, unless there is a reasonable amount of the other delete votes that are will to consider a withdrawl based on the draft's progress.  Anyways, I'm fading in and out ready to pass out for the night flat out any minute... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 03:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * note If you withdraw your nomination all that happens now there have been many contributions to the discussion, is that your own opinion about deletion is removed from the closing equation. A withdrawal after opinions have been offered is a normal, simple, and usual thing if you change your mind as nominator. It does not affect the running of the discussion, nor the timetable for closing it. Fiddle   Faddle  21:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It beats me the way this conversation is going. Different ideas have been proposed that could all be termed remote refuelling, but there's nothing that ties them together other than that one, loose semantic connection - unlike, say, chemical and nuclear rockets. Where's the link? andy (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, in Beam-powered propulsion, energy for propulsion is delivered to a remote vessel in the form of energy. Remote refueling as discussed in the article is anything that delivers energy for propulsion to a remote vessel in the form of mass, or as a property of delivered mass.  That means hypervelocity slugs, nuclear fuel, chemical fuel, antimatter, or whatever other source of fuel you can find that can be transferred from place to place.  Does this make more sense? Matthewhburch (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, even less sense. The idea is that antimatter and rail guns can both be used to transport fuel so they must have something significant and notable in common. It's exactly like saying that pet rabbits can be shipped by plane or truck so let's have an article called "Transportation methods for furry animals". Or, if you like, rabbits can be fired from cannons, trebuchets and rail guns so let's have an article called "Bombardment methods utilising rabbits accelerated from a remote source of rabbits". Meh, whatever. andy (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the opportunity to think more clearly on the definition of the method. On a second pass description, I would describe the draft as a collection of methods where mass accelerated from a remote source is used as a medium for energy transfer to accelerate a distant vessel. Before you argue too strenuously that too many different ideas fall under this description, I'll mention that Beam-powered propulsion is not exactly uniform itself.  It's not all giant lasers and torch ships.  There are many variants. Matthewhburch (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you make my point for me - the idea is a grab-bag. The methods have nothing much in common except that they'll fit into the bag. This is why there's nothing in the literature about the concept - there is no concept. andy (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This logic would make one doubt the rationality of the group of things called 'animals', 'vertebrates', or 'mammals'. They cover too wide a range of differences!!  One might suspect that people would decide to use sub-groupings to clarify relationships between members of a larger group, or something crazy like that!  Matthewhburch (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * that's not a good example, as there are objective evolutionary relationships. More to the point would be such things as the different genres of literature or music, where the criteria chosen depend on what characteristics people find useful in classifying,and there is generally room for dispute, on and off Wikipedia, sometimes heated, on their meaning, relationship, and inclusion criteria.  But in all cases WP depends upon 3rd party outside sources having made the grouping. If someone were to come here and make an article on, say   "folk music of Indiana and Nevada", or  it would be valid or invalid here based not on whether the relationship is logical or not logical, but on whether published sources have discussed it as a group. As you say, you have devised the present grouping: it seems possibly logical to me, but that's not the criterion. When someone else published about it as a class, then it will make sense to have an article here.
 * The applicability of G7 to this case is debatable. In general, yes, a person can certainly withdraw a draft, and I have often encouraged them to do so if it seems very unlikely that an article will be possible. But normally we decline G7 whether for a draft or an article if someone else thinks the material is useful and improvable. This does not apply to user space, as anyone may remove material in their own user space if they choose (with a few specific exceptions) and so the situation with user space drafts is ambivalent--one of the reasons for the draft space is to get drafts into a common area.
 * I agree with you that at present it is generally more useful to work in article space than in draft space. AfC reviewing has a considerable resemblance to a Magic 8-ball, AfD discussions are more likely to attract adequate discussion than MfD,, and the standards are clearer (the only problem is that the standards for some things, like notability, are much higher--if you know that a draft won't show notability without further work, it's obviously not a good idea to put it in article space).  DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * DGG, Now that I understand what 'notable' means in Wikipedia, I know this article should be deleted. However, letting Technical 13 work on this a little bit if he wants to try to find documentation to support creating the article hurts nobody.  He might surprise me and find some documents that I didn't discover in the last two years I spent researching it. Unfortunately, 'remote' and 'fuel' are two very common words in NASA articles.  Matthewhburch (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep. The concept of the article seems notable and I don't think this draft is completely beyond saving. It would need a lot of work though. -- W.  D.   Graham  19:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The author of the article seems to disagree with you! The problem with the article is that while the individual parts are notable (and most have their own WP articles) the concept has no reliable sources. andy (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What I have come to realize is that Wikipedia has bastardized the term 'notable' into something that more closely resembles 'famous.' Even worse, the page that actually describes Wikipedia's definition of 'notable' is contradictory and unclear in it's wording.  To be completely honest, my hope was to distribute this idea within Wikipedia so that those in the space science community could see the idea, and I would be able to prove the math and the logic without needing to go through all the torturous crap associated with journals and publication.  Unfortunately, I misjudged what 'notable' means to Wikipedia.  This leaves me with a new path of least resistance, through journals and other publications.  Once that process is completed, it will be easy enough to establish an article here, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Matthewhburch (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Matthew, I think you could make a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, such as using your expertise to improve rocketry articles and the like; knowing what's missing and where the reliable sources are to verify additions. I hope this experience will not sour you too much. I also think this discussion has really confused matters by focusing at all on notability. The crux of the problem is original research (my comments on that is on the draft's talk page; I'd also note it appears not only to be admittedly so per the statements there, but immediately above). Yes, notability is technically not off target, but only because where a topic is indeed original research (as opposed to just content that needs to be removed, which we see much more often), perforce, that topic will not have been the subject of previous publication. But that's so secondary to the major concern and heart of the matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fuhghettaboutit, This debacle has only soured my opinion of the Wikipedia article creation process and a few of those actively involved in it. I still consider Wikipedia to be an excellent source of famous and mostly-notable knowledge.  I also feel that Wikipedia would be well-served by cleaning up the muddled mess on the notability definition page, and requiring that every reviewer rejection have a clear and precise reason behind it - not all of the reasons, but at least one actionable reason for every rejection.  Failing to provide an actionable reason for a rejection should be an actionable violation on the part of a reviewer.  Reviewers are there to help, right?  Alphabet soup wiki acronyms without examples are not help.  That's my 0.02 and where I stand. Matthewhburch (talk) 18:16, 3 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.