Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field propulsion

Field propulsion

Field propulsion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No sources about this subject. Not recognized as a concept except by those engaging in original research receiving no mainstream, third-party independent recognition in violation of WP:FRINGE. Do not be misled by vague accusations that NASA had a "field propulsion program". They didn't. They funded a guy briefly who invented the term out of thin air but haven't adopted the term or the ideas themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While this does seem to be a term that has been taken up by the fringe UFO brigade, it does have some currency, as a google search will show and that in itself makes it notable. There are many, many books discussing this subject and as a notable fringe theory, references are not hard to find, see page 24 of “Outside-the-Box” Technologies, Their Critical Role Concerning Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis: A Compilation of Briefing Papers Prepared For The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for instance. Academic papers exploring the concept exist such as Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum For Interstellar Flight and Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics. Back here in the real world, NASA has done a lot of work with tethers in space which could legitimately be described as a field propulsion system in that no propellant is required. Although the article is in a dreadful state at the moment, it could certainly be built into a good paranormal article, and even a solid science article (or both) and on that basis it should be kept and allowed to develop. SpinningSpark 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Puthoff et al (2001) listed above. There are about 188 scholar ghits (some of which discuss space travel), so I think there's enough information to properly cite the article. The tether propulsion article could be linked in a "See also" section.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Loads of Google Books hits. If you look past the fringe stuff talking about such things as the Nazis' supposed development of this technology you'll find plenty of reliable sources amongst them. And here's a report of an academic conference on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 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.