Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aresian Well

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 delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aresian Well

Aresian Well (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Neologistic term for something that does not exist and likely never will, does not appear to have garnered much interest outside of its main proponent. Most of this is straight out of the pages of science fiction. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - while being "straight out of the pages of science fiction" and "does not exist and likely never will" are not grounds for deletion (see Dyson sphere, for example), "neologism" and "no independent sources" definitely are. There are lots of references, but only two that antedate the concept's invention, both of those by the inventor himself. Google produces no relevant results outside Wikipedia. --Huon 10:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Google turns up the SSI/AIAA publication. Unfortunately a typo in the AAS volume contents page (full content not online) lists it as "Artesian Well". Are these not relevant? AJWM 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Concept occurs nowhere beyond the originator's work. Note that the other sources listed do not address or support the topic in any meaningful manner. WP:NEO, WP:NFT. Serpent's Choice 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Concur with others above. --Dweller 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I dislike this not being speedy-able. Michaelbusch 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - only one of those eight references even mentions the idea. The whole "beanstalk" section that constitutes the bulk of the article is a pure content fork from Space elevator, despite the author's protestations to the contrary — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Can you explain why you think that the bulk of the article is a "content fork" from space elevator? It seems to be neither the bulk of the article not duplicative of the space elevator article, to which it refers readers for further details on that aspect. AJWM 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. FWIW, the examples cited from science fiction (The Fountains of Paradise and, I'm pretty sure, Red Mars too) describe space elevators, not "beanstalks". Anville 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Fountains of Paradise reference is called out from the technique of wobbling the tether to avoid Phobos, Clarke presented it there first. It solves a problem unique to Mars-based orbital tethers. (And there's nothing to prevent a beanstalk also being used as an elevator.) The terminology debate (which has been quite acrimonious on the space elevator page) should not have any bearing on retaining/deleting this page. AJWM 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The term 'beanstalk' for a space elevator has only been used in jest (by Larry Niven in Rainbow Mars). Michaelbusch 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? I think The Beanstalk Project might disagree, and NASA explicitly use the elevator/beanstalk analogy on their own website — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article draws a distinction between "elevator-like hoisting mechanism[s]" and continuous-flow arrangements, calling the former space elevators and the latter "beanstalks". It says that Arthur Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson used beanstalks in their books, when they were actually elevator-like hoisting machines. Not that it matters too much. Anville 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein used the term 'beanstalk' in his novel Friday -- as the space elevator page mentions. Niven's use postdates the referenced paper.AJWM 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Even our own space elevator article mentions that they're sometimes called beanstalks. It also gives a 1980s sci-fi reference for the term. --Huon 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User "Michaelbusch" seems to have a personal grudge against this concept, vis his (erroneous) comment above, his comment "I dislike this not being speedy-able" above, his comments on the article discussion page that the idea is "pointless", and his comment on AJWM's talk page that the idea "is amusing, but Mars' volatile inventory is relatively low and that of the asteroids high, so I see no market. Michaelbusch 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)" This assertion is unproved, and Michaelbusch, as an asteroid researcher, may have a significant bias here (it also ignores delta-vee considerations). Michaelbusch also initially tagged the article for deletion. While there may or may not be a legitimate policy reason to delete, Michaelbusch's remarks should be discounted. AJWM 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - there might be a good bit of fluff in the references which is not directly connected to the concept at all. Still, the Space Studies Institute looks legit and notable enough. Wikipedia is not paper, what is the problem with keeping something that has only one reputable reference?MadMaxDog 07:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That SSI reference is a conference talk delivered by the inventor himself. It's not as if anybody but Mr Mayer has ever written (or said) anything about the Aresian Well. Without claiming that such is the case here, I happen to know that it's possible to deliver talks about any kind of nonsense at conferences, making such talks less reliable than, say, articles in peer-reviewed journals. And with all due respect, I doubt Mr Mayer is notable enough to confer automatic notability on his project. Furthermore, User:AJWM claims to be Alastair J. W. Mayer, the inventor, leading to a conflict of interest. --Huon 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User:AJWM says that I have a personal grudge against this concept, which I will chose to not consider a personal attack. I do want this material to be removed, because I have spent considerable time studying the economics of spaceflight, and have a certain lack of patience when it comes to nonsensical ideas. That said, WP:N is sufficient grounds for this material being excluded from Wikipedia. My comments above and those quoted by AJWM were simply me treating the idea as a concept, independent of the question of its inclusion. I do regret that material like this isn't speedy-able, because it would save me considerable time as compared to setting up AfDs. Michaelbusch 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment AJWM claims that WP:COI doesn't apply, but at the same time claims to be the inventor of the idea and to be writing a science-fiction novel based on the concept. This is a contradiction. Michaelbusch 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have made no comment one way or the other about WP:COI. These false assertions by Michaelbusch seem to be bordering on personal attacks themselves. If the consensus of Wikipedians is to delete the article or merge its content into other articles, then so be it, but let that decision be for legitmate Wikipedia policy reasons.AJWM 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AWJM posted this on Talk:Aresian Well: "While I am the originator of the idea (but not of Martian beanstalks in general), that was almost twenty years ago and I have no particular proprietary interest in it." I took this to be a denial of WP:COI. If I was mistaken, I apologize. And as has been stated, the deletion was nominated per policy (notability). Michaelbusch 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.SlideAndSlip 15:09, 27 April 2007 (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.