Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exoskeletal engine

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exoskeletal engine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about an apparently technically flawed style of jet engine that 'might work in 20 years' (which if I break the tech-speak code means 'we can't make it work'), unlike the wide variety of jet engines that do actually work. Article topic seems to be a non notable. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, possible namechange to Exoskeletal engine research, per Cancer research, Genome research, etc. The article is ill defined as an object that does not yet exist; the theory itself is an entity, in the same way that the Theory of gravity is, let alone the research into the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSeems to be a real concept being taken by credible researchers, but I'm not sure how much discussion there is of the concept outside of NASA (which would confirm notability)Nigel Ish (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only get 65 hits in google, and the hits I get in google seem to be almost exclusively primary sources, and the other hits, I wouldn't call them substantial coverage at all. It's not like we're knee-deep in secondary source mentions of it, they're all very superficial.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. "It doesn't work yet" is not a good reason to delete. Otherwise, we may as well blank all the pages about hypothetical spacecraft propulsion, concept aircraft, any technology not already in mass production really. Seriously what's the point? Why not delete the Deadalus Drive page then, that hasn't gotten off the ground either. Keep it.

It's not really about that. Project Daedalus was written about in a WP:RELIABLE secondary source, and searching google[1] gives 6,500 hits. None of this has been described in secondary sources, and we get only 65 hits in google. The papers I looked at suggested that the whole idea seems to have some fundamental problems (mainly in the bearings, which isn't surprising IMO given the geometry, but whatever). In the absence of a secondary source describing this topic, the wikipedia should not have this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah but that's not what you said. And anyway, the point is that this is no less realistically possible than the Deadalus Drive or Valkyrie spaceship or whatever. I still see no reason we should delete it. At worst move it to an article focusing on research for it, maybe. But really, counting google hits doesn't make it any more or less probable or possible or technically sound--I can find a hella lot of google hits for the TimeCube and Banzai Kittens too. Probably ten times as many as Deadalus, IF for some reason we needed to troll the net for that crap.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bonsai kitten and Time Cube are both considered notable, and are helped in that by having lots of google hits, other websites clearly consider them notable. This has almost none. That's not a good sign.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Non notable and technically flawed; a bit like the opinion of Whittle's ideas given by "experts" of the day in 1929/30. The sources noted (in 2005/6) that a suitable bearing system needs to be developed which could take some time; however, the 20-year figure quoted in the source is speculative – none of us has a crystal ball. Engineers and designers have always had to overcome technical challenges to make new ideas work, but that doesn't mean that they're technically flawed, and simply because today's technology hasn't yet been able to provide a solution (AFAIK) it doesn't follow that one will not be found. I was going to vote Keep, but IMHO Anarchangel's suggestion to move it to something like Exoskeletal engine concept is a better idea. --Red Sunset 08:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The vote is about whether it is notable or not. It's wp:notable if it has substantial coverage, particularly in secondary sources. It doesn't though, and hence is ineligible for inclusion here. If they actually got it to work, that would doubtless change, people would talk about it more, and it would become notable. IMO it's clearly not, right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article desperately needs some technical diagrams for a better appreciation of the concept. --Red Sunset 08:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has value in its basic principles. It needs technical diagrams. Rosser Gruffydd 21:26, 19 September 2009 (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.