User:Chaosdruid/leftnavbar/Roboticsconv

User page Wikidashboard Articles Projects Cats Copyediting
MoS GA/FA Frequently used
templates Current events User boxes Suggested articles Awards and
barnstars Sandboxes

Userboxes Awards from editors Gen Users Robotics conv Ukraine conv Strange comments Bitten TOC limits Page assessment issues

Mayboroda deletion discussion edit

Alexander Mayboroda edit

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

I removed a Prod based on comments on the article talk page. Original Prod reasoning was:

"No reliable sources - most of the references don't mention Mayboroda and the others are self-published. Nothing relevant on Google either (see the Talk page). The article claims he has held various university and management positions but provides no references, and in any case these would probably be insufficient to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS"

I currently have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. GB fan please review my editing 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per my earlier prod. It's worth noting that the author has been pushing the fringe technology that makes up the bulk of this article - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accumulating Space Device (ASD) andy (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete as original research. I don't see much salvageable material here. Perhaps he'd be safer in the Russian-language WP? Several Times (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

KeepDear Editors. I am writing to you because of your false, based on nothing, accusations regarding the following: 1) "No reliable sources - most of the references don't mention Mayboroda and the others are self-published. Nothing relevant on Google either" this is not substantial for a number of reasons First of all, I have provided the article with various reliable and veryfiable sources: 1) "Техника-молодежи» 1984 №5, с.30-35 -"Technical youth" 1984 (in Russian) 2) "Техника-молодежи» 2011 №7,Безракетный космос. Ну, почти безракетный... В новых орбитальных и межпланетных транспортных системах ракеты будут играть роль второго плана -"Technical youth" 2011 W. Meylitsev. Non-rocket space. Well, almost non-rocket… (in Russian). 3) I dont UNDERSTAND WHAT is THE PROBLEM WITH the offical state and interstate web-sites I have included. WHAT IS WRONG? I mean web-sites like www1.fips.ru and http://wipo.int/portal/index.html.en 4) I have added a new reference about Mayboroda's political position and how he was once a candidate for a deputy in State Duma. It is a russian source but the wiki rules say that sources should not neccesarily be in english. Please, check this out as well I am gonna add another reliable and verifiable sources to this article. But i feel like i am being accused of creating some rubbish wiki articles in advance without even careful reading and checking which is not acceptable and which is going to have some consequences for the offenders. As for the accusation that this article is an original research it is a sheer illusion and misunderstanding. All information that is included in this article had been published in various sources (including WIPO AND FIPS WEB_SITES, TECHNIKA MOLODEZI, various hard sources and journals etc etc) SO HOW IS IT THAT THIS ARTICLE IS AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH IF I HAVE SHOWN THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN VARIOUS SOURCES BEFORE. Another thing is

Keep English secondary and tertiary sources may in fact be limited, though Demetriades and the young technician refs from Bolonkin is enough of a mention for me to accept as a keep via secondaries/tertiaries. It is true that the article may need cutting down somewhat, there are a fair amount of refs to the Mayboroda.com site which may need some serious discussion. There is a reference here to the entry in Young Technician No. 10 as well as Bolonkin using his article in two or more publications Space towers and New Technologies and Revolutionary Projects. The patent is at this location in WIPO. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see this. The first reference is merely a citation and the next two don't mention him at all. Moreover New Technologies and Revolutionary Projects cites wikipedia as a source! None of this is remotely close to WP:RS. andy (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That he quotes Wikipedia as a source does not affect the issue that he also quotes Mayboroda as one. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is so, so far from WP:RS. andy (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is? The book I mentioned is an RS, and it plus the two additionals were being used to show that the article from the magazine was mentioned elsewhere (as you can clearly see from my statement above). Is it your contention that the book published by Elsevier fails RS in some way? If you simply want the last word, then fine, but so far you have not persuaded me that this should be deleted and it is unlikely that you will. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment The book does not discuss Alexander Mayboroda at all, and hence does not help for WP:BIO. It does cite one of Mayboroda's articles, but many, many citations are needed to meet WP:PROF. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the obvious, I did say that this was not to prove anything other than the article had been used as a source in a published book. That is simply it. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment In other words, it's an RS, but not one contributing to notability for this article. Ditto the Demetriades article -- it's probably an RS but, being written when the subject was 5 years old, not relevant to notability. In fact, I can't see any sources that are (1) reliable, (2) independent, and (3) contributing to notability under WP:BIO or WP:PROF. -- 202.124.72.155 (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Dear Sir Chaosdruid, I totally agree with you regarding your remarks about the neccessety to cut down the article in order to improve it. I will do so with your help. Just wait for a while until we get it right. I 'll put up more references. And we can talk about mayboroda.com as well. I'd really like to know how i can use some of the animated pictures that are available at mayboroda.com and that are very relevant in terms of their support to his patented inventions. These animated pictures clarify a lot about his theoretical inventions. thanks a lot for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability (meets neither WP:BIO or WP:PROF); no mention of the subject's name in independent, reliable sources. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I am also concerned about all the images in the article, which appear to be taken from mayboroda.com and other web sites. This in turn suggests either (1) massive copyvio, or (2) that the author of the article is in fact Alexander Mayboroda, which would be massive COI. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Note. The statement "... which is going to have some consequences for the offenders" above appears to constitute WP:THREAT or WP:VIOLENCE -- 202.124.72.155 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andy!!! First, thanks very much for telling me that I should sign what I say. I will try my best to put it into practice. ALthough it may take some time until i figure out how it actually works (please, dont forget that i am very new to it).

As for my statement " ...which is going to have some consequences ..." i find it so amazing ..how we can interprete things since it does not refer to legal consequences of any sort whatsoever. To clarify, that statement is referred to the phrases related to my another article and which are (1) "apparently feasible, if somewhat dodgy, proposed technology that is referred to in Alexander Mayboroda" and "wild speculations" posted by Andy Smith. And this was a warm, welcoming word to a new user which is ME. I wrote that it's actually offensive (offensive not in a legal sense but in moral and human) to call patented (registred) inventions wild speculations and dodgy technologies which shows the level of "education" of the author of these words (especially taking into account that the author is an actual Wiki editor) and which is going to be complained about sooner or later at the administrators' of Wikipedia page. I am very sorry if it was taken in any other way / it is not my fault. any language is imperfect. so it is neither WP:THREAT or WP:VIOLENCE but WP:INEVITABILITY

As for the copyrights violation and the so-called WP:COI|COI statements they are not evidenced or substantial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC) They are not substantial because they are actually against what the copyvio page says (Dear editors please, read the wiki guidance carefully) The copyvio page goes "...However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation..." So I, Sychev Ivan, has posted all the images related to Mayboroda's biography and his inventions a) with the permission of their author, Alexander Mayboroda, HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO KEEPING THEM ON WIKI. WHAT IS THE DIFFICULTY? all these images are in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment If images owned by Alexander Mayboroda are being used with his permission, than the process in WP:Requesting copyright permission needs to be followed. -- 202.124.72.194 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Hi there! not a problem. I'll get through the official procedure of WP:Requesting copyright permission although i have already got an oral permission. anyhow that's ok. now i am more concerned with posting more reliable sources confirming more and more points i make in the article. by the way the article has already been greatly modified in this sence, so, please, kindly check. I have removed info i m unlikely to prove very quickly. but now i m gonna put up more sources. the only problem for you, my dear editors, may be that it's gonna be mostly sources in russian language. or you have got problems with it? i think you should have russian editors you can contact to check my sources, that's not a big deal. otherwise it maybe quilified as "discrimination"...anyhow, thanks a lot for your patience and help [[Ivan.sychev108 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]]

Accumulating space device edit

Accumulating Space Device (ASD) edit

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

Article about a fringe technology which will open up the conquest of outer space by means of a satellite "accumulating various atmospheric gases, liquid and solid substances". I wonder why nobody thought of that before? Unreferenced, of course. Only 4 non-WP ghits. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS andy (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: On further inspection the article seems to be based on a misunderstanding of an apparently feasible, if somewhat dodgy, proposed technology that is referred to in Alexander Mayboroda - an example reference is here. There are some question marks over Alexander Mayboroda as well - written largely by the same author, containing the same wild speculations (10,000 tonne satellites?) and possibly also COI. andy (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I fear we will have to delete as well the article Alexander Mayboroda as (nearly?) everything that its creator, Ivan.sychev108, has added to various space-related articles, as it clearly does not live up to Wikipedia:Notability. Ivan.sychev108 has not yet reacted to several requests from editors after his partially excessive edits. We are not urged to accept anything out of sheer politeness. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep There are several references for PROFAC, including the British Institute of Spaceflight journal. The IEEE gives us another variant name PHARO—Propellant harvesting of atmospheric resources in orbit and Google Scholar gives one of the several PROFAC papers as well as the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System. Though the article content is at present a little off, it could easily be referenced and improved. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite apart from the very limited references to PROFAC, this article goes way beyond that into the realms of fruit-loopery. There ain't no such beast as an "Accumulating Space Device". andy (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fruit-loopery :¬) It is a little more down the line of WP:NEOLOGISM I think that perhaps renaming with a descriptive title that better than this one, or merging it to another suitable article are probably better than deleting it out-of-hand. If you like you can userify it to my user space if the vote is delete and I will chop it about and find suitable homes once refd.

"Orbital harvesters that collect propellants" is a bit of a mouthful though. I will look for any NASA references to the topic. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is looking as if the only refs from NASA are to the [MHDs]. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, It is nice to meet you all here. You may all have various thoughts about this topic which is normal. But i suggest that you get a bit more patient so that i can find more reliable references...i am new to it..not like you..and of course it takes time to get it right. Some of you may have an interest in space-related topics etc etc...but first of all you have to realise what you are deliting...it;s not a big deal to delete. Get an expert to get into this Mr Dyson, Louis Friedman etc etc. These guys have been closely affiliated with the Planetary Society..they know a lot about these projects.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Chaosdruid, thank You very much for Your additional information about what I call Accumulating Space Device (ASD). All your references will be included in the article as soon as I have some spare time. The thing is this term (Accumulating Space Device or Космический аппарат накопитель (КАН)) has been accepted and used in Russian patents and russian publications. I dont mind if you can offer a better term fot it. It is very nice to find out that within your circles of Wiki editors there are some knowledgable and competent specialists in space-related topics. I am also working on creating a Russian version of Wiki Article regarding Accumulating Space Devices. But I dont have much time for it...soon it will be ready. hopefully. Dear Chaosdruid, please, could You tell me where I could make a complaint about some of the wiki editors who brake the rules of discussions and offend creators of wiki articles in advance without bothering to get the drift of what is being written (created)? thank you very much for Your help kind regards from russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete. No evidence of notability, and no sources provided. The PROFAC/PHARO concept may perhaps be notable (see the IEEE paper cited by Chaosdruid), and a completely rewritten article on that topic may be a keeper, but it is not clear that any of the present content would find a place in such an article. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete No sources, reads like bad science fiction.--Djohns21 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Gentlemen, all it needs is a modification for which i have not had time yet cos i have been busy with my first article. Another thing is that somehow or other I JUST CANNOT INSERT ANY REFERENCES in it.. it seems like the system has gone wrong or something...There are already a number of references inserted in the text (but not in a proper way unfortunately). So please, help to put them properly.

If NASA and organazations like the British Interplanetary Society are not authorities for you and if things they speak about are not notable....I feel really sorry for you. thank you [[Ivan.sychev108 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]]