Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro-gravitic propulsion

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-gravitic propulsion

Unsourced weasel-speak. --Pjacobi 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~without prejudice to recreation. However, any new version of this article will need references which provide some evidence that this concept is notable.~~ --EMS | Talk 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The changes made since my initial posting on this matter are sufficient to convince me that this topic fails WP:SCI and WP:FICTION. It now appears to me to be a made-up idea that has no gounding in either science or technology. The references cited IMO are insufficient to show that this was "a research subject that became popular in the mid-1950s". --EMS | Talk 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds notable references, and most websites not included. Someguy1221 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and hunt down references. This idea is certainly mentioned enough to be notable; the problem is the lack of references to respectable commentary on it, not the article's existence. --Christopher Thomas 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per EMS. Tengfred 09:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced and free of weasel words now. Uncle G 13:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitively an improvement, but what should be done with science fiction and ufology aspects? Remove categories and navbox from from outer space or include these aspects. Keepable now but I very mucg assume it will drift away from sane version if not closely watched. --Pjacobi 13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral there are sources now and it does seem notable enough to have an article but it still needs some work.--Joebengo 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been added, mark as a stub instead of deleting it (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still needs a rewrite. It strongly suggests that Brown considered this some form of antigravity effect, whereas the Biefeld-Brown effect is, and pretty much always was, known to be unrelated to gravity. The Thomas Townsend Brown article has a similar problem (though only an added sentence or two is needed for the latter article).--Christopher Thomas 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Concept originated by Thomas Townsend Brown. J. D. Redding 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just don't worl out in the current state of Wikipedia. Uncle G's version was keepable but the article now has started its transformation into bullshit-land again. --Pjacobi 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the present version of the article is indeed about twice the length it should be and contains dubious claims in the first half or so, it does add additional, apparently-valid historical information that was missing in the last Uncle G version. A rewrite, rather than a revert, would seem to be in order.

Also, as a relatively minor point, having most of the last 100 edits be incremental changes by Reddi spaced a minute apart makes the "history" tab far more annoying to use than necessary. Preview, rather than incremental saving, is the way to go.--Christopher Thomas 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical nonsense from a well-known original researcher and POV-pusher. Stick to the fork, Reddi. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA people. Please keep it civil and stick to arguments about the page. Ad hominem comments are not welcome here - perfectblue 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, but clean up and divide the science and hypothesis from the pseudoscience: People obviously aren't doing their research I suggest that they stop using Google.com and start using a slightly better tuned method instead. Like a library, or at least a less commercially orientated search engine. There is plenty of evidence to show that electrogravitics is more than notable to be included here. There is a lot of scientific hypothesis (and more than enough pseudoscience) to make it verifiable and notable. for example

Aviation Studies (International) Ltd (1956) "Electro-gravitics Systems: An examination of electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and barycentric control."
Loder Theodore C. (2002), "Outside the box: Space and terrestrial transportation energy technologies for the 21st century", American Institute of Aeronautics Astronautics
Valone Thomas (1995), "Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology", Integrity Research Institute, ISBN 0964107007.

Electrogravitics were also included in a report put before Congress in 2003.

"Innovative Environmental Technologies: Field hearing before the Committee on Environment and Public Works", United States Senate, 107th Congress", US Government Printing Office ISBN 0160697042.

Remember, Wikipedia isn't just about proven science, it's also about hypothetical science too. Something doesn't have to be on the shelves at walmart to be in Wikipedia - perfectblue 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be "on the shelves at walmart" to be called _science_, or otherwise presented as scientific _fact_, though. That is one of the main problems with the article at present (the other being that it goes on a tangent mentioning many other phenomena involving electrostatics that aren't related to "electrogravitation"). --Christopher Thomas 17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to tell that to the boys over at Dark matter, Superstring theory, and Flyby anomaly, as well as the guys over at Urban Myths etc. Besides, there's more than enough pseudo science alone on this topic to do a full article in itself. - perfectblue 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.