Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendricks fusion tornado surfer

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 of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hendricks fusion tornado surfer

original research

Delete - original research; no Google hits JoJan 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Original thought. Not sure why that is a problem. The professor of physics at the University of Arizona wasn't sure whether the notion had merit or not and I haven't the time to do the research or the math. Looking for comment.

When I envisioned the Bussard Ramjet, I wondered what could go wrong beyond the obvious. That's when I thought of the possibility of swirling or a vortex forming interrupting the normal flow of interstellar gas. What might be the implications of this.

So, you won't find anything on Google. Not until someone does the math and can yeah/nay the concept. Is this grounds for deletion?

Thanks for your consideraiton. posted by 80.80.170.248 Sliggy 21:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This research may or may not have its merits. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide. Continue your research, do your maths and get it publicised in a scientific paper. Only then Wikipedia will be interested. Good luck. JoJan 10:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid that being original research is grounds for deletion; more detail is available at Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is also not a free host or webspace provider on which to broadcast research ideas, or requests for discussion. Delete. Sliggy 21:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
80.80.170.248/136.216.75.2, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is right at the other end of the process that you are embarking upon. Ideas belong here after they have been conceived, refined, published, fact checked, subjected to the praise and lambasting of the community, and finally (if they make it this far) accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance for new ideas. It is neither intended nor equipped to perform the peer review that you seek. Please look elsewhere. Delete. Uncle G 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Stifle 01:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculation, original research, non-notable. Best of luck, come back when it works. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, as per above. ManoaChild 03:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete OR/Unverifiable fusion engine designed by a non-notable poet and amateur film maker with a very ugly web site. Hoax detector smoking hot Pete.Hurd 02:13, 28 November 2005 (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.