- 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. There is a consensus that discussion of the topic is warranted somewhere on Wikipedia. There isn't a clear consensus on whether or not Space fountain should be merged into Non-rocket spacelaunch. That question can be discussed further on the article's talk page to establish consensus. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Space fountain
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Space fountain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-article about a non-notable imagined or fantastic bit of science fiction from Robert L. Forward, no independent sourcing. After deletion, no objection to creation of a redirect to that page or any other suitable target if one can be found. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - completely agree with JLAN's assessment. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 00:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - I added some more information and references, there is potential to improve it more. That it hasn't been built (so far?) is not a deletion reason. -- mfb ( talk) 01:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Even with the additional references, RS coverage appears to be minimal and does not establish notability for a standalone article. The existing section at Non-rocket spacelaunch is sufficient. – dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to Non-rocket spacelaunch#Space_fountain. There are enough sources showing coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] (and the primary but edited [5]) to support retention of something. Minsky speaks of the origination here. Also used in fiction by at least Pohl [6], and presumably Forward. It looks like a solid two paragraphs would be able to encapsulate coverage visible online, and that there isn't enough (without dragging in primary material) for a significantly lengthier article. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 03:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep A much lengthier article was recently deleted for COPYVIO, which is fair enough. However, it shows that the current contents are by no means the limit, and the existing references confer notability. GliderMaven ( talk) 06:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Copyvio appears to have been of this (non-copyvio link), which is a primary source but an edited one. Was there any sigcov not from that, which was deleted and/or can anyone identify any other RS secondary coverage that would reasonably allow for a significantly lengthier article? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 07:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to Non-rocket spacelaunch#Space_fountainInteresting (deserves coverage) but not notable enough for own article. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- 'Keep. Items like this are exactly why we have categories like Category:Hypothetical technology in the first place. also, this is not some random trivial hypothetical gadget like a salad-maker; this is a genuine scientific hypothetical idea of some importance for the Space Age. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 17:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three way-disagreement for Keep, Delete, Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Three way-disagreement for Keep, Delete, Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep because chemical rocket propulsion has been used since World War 2 and nobody ever thought of a better way. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 23:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason to keep. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 27. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 00:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of coverage in books like It's ONLY Rocket Science and Space, the Final Frontier?. Andrew D. ( talk) 15:48, 3 January 2019 (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.