- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CrossFire Fusor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrodynamic Space Thruster - basically the same reasons as that AfD. Unreferenced, original research; bordering on pseudoscience in some parts. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please, be fair and specific in saying whether something is pseudoscience or not!
I think saying something is pseudoscience without explaining why, may sound as calumny.
As far as I can understand, pseudoscience is something that is unable to prove its claims such as producing unlimited clean energy; thinking in this way, all fusion concepts up to now, such as NIF, Tokamaks (JET, ITER), and so forth, should be put in the realm of pseudoscience for not proving their claims even with decades of heavy investments and scientific support.
Crossfire reactor uses same ideas that are used in some of these fusion concepts; it has a little different setup in comparison to Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor and Polywell. And as far as I can see, from description, calculation and drawings, the setup is technically reasonable and feasible, and it does not use exotic things to be considered as pseudoscience.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Probonopublic (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find anything to establish the notability of this reactor, or anything to establish it scientifically, only a few mentions on helium.com. Although I agree, if you're going to call something pseudo-science, you should back it up. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; complete lack of notability, although the Cavalry should have learnt by now not to bandy the term pseudo-science around. Naughty boy; must be the seawater leaking into your ears. Safeguard, full clips. Ironholds (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There's a blizzard of references, but none passing WP:RS that are actually about this subject. Whether it's pseudo-science or not is immaterial to its utter lack of notability. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. Ravenswing 21:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.