Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 10

10 June 2022

Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor – Deletion resoundingly endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Added independent reliable sources directly relevant to article topics for satisfying WP:GNG WarpingSpacetime (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - This is not an appropriate use of deletion review. There was an obvious consensus for deletion, and the discussion was held open for an appropriate length of time. The DRV proposer is simply rehashing an argument made in the AfD. PianoDan (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OVERTURN - Per WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly; 2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed; 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; 4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or 5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion. Clearly, 1, 3 & 5 come into play during previous deletion group discussion. Counting votes is not an appropriate method for determining deletion ruling but all arguments and evidence must be acknowledged and carefully considered. Article was nominated for deletion citing WP:GNG. In response to WP:GNG concerns, the article's author, in good faith, argued for and provided directly relevant independent reliable peer-reviewed sources on article title, topics and subjects. Author believes there was a misinterpretation of WP Policy and WP Guidelines during previous discussions. Specifically, there appears to be confusion between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s. WP:N Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that "If a TOPIC has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the SUBJECT, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (See [4],[5],[7] for directly relevant to WARP Reactor ion ring pinch/compression, fusion and radiation topics; See [8]-[11],[13] for directly relevant WARP Reactor inertial fusion, high energy density physics and next generation pulsed power topics; See [14] for directly relevant WARP Reactor DPF/Z-Pinch topic). FURTHERMORE, WP:NPOSSIBLE "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access (See [1]-[14]) Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of sources existing even if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. Finally, if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. It was pretty clear the AfD addressed all the issues that the creator brought up here as well--ad nauseam. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and will address the appellant's reasons in detail:
- - As to point 1, the appellant's argument appears to be that the closer did not supervote. DRV does not overturn a close simply by stating that the closer had a duty to supervote.
  - As to point 1, maybe the appellant is conflating length of argument with strength of argument. They did provide the greater length of argument, but that doesn't matter.
  - As to point 3, why didn't the appellant provide the additional sources while the AFD was in process?
  - As to point 3, the title has not been salted, and the appellant is permitted to submit a draft for review.
  - As to point 5, the appellant has not identified a procedural error.
  - User:DGG - You accepted the draft via AFC. Do you have a comment either on its notability or the close?
  - Bludgeoning wasn't useful at AFD and is not likely to be useful at DRV.
  - The appellant never addressed the question about conflict of interest, although they did respond evasively to it.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse DRV is not the place to make the same arguments at even greater length to drag the process out even longer. (I participated in the original discussion.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if it's real and will be awesome someday, no one has written about it yet. Consensus was clear and entirely in line with Wikipedia's purpose. We don't aim to be the first to cover something like this, nor should we. Sorry, but feel free to come back when the mainstream press actually picks up on it. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It rings loud of a physicist’s original research, for which WP:NOR was written. Advise the proponent that if they are sure we are all wrong, to create a small draft and to follow the advice of WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.