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. ✗plicit 23:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence that this particular approach to fusion meets GNG. Little to no coverage in secondary sources - sources in article do not support notability of the topic. Appears to have been written by a single purpose account with a likely WP:COI. PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A WARP core? A WARP reactor? Looks vaguely familiar for some reason. Did a search of various things - there's no coverage whatsoever anywhere, there's a single web page pushing this idea. The first source doesn't mention this concept, only mentions that a Zoom forum took place on the dates mentioned in the ref. The other sources appear to be a collection of concepts, with nothing to do with this as a concept. In all, this appears to be 100 percent a hoax and should be deleted, speedily if possible as such. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this through again, I may have been a bit harsh about the hoax comment and have struck it; this is certainly likely to be a concept of its own, but it has gained zero traction in and of itself, and thus remains non-notable at this time. All of the references seem to refer to physics concepts, rather than to this as a whole. I am still of the opinion that this does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I have added more peer-reviewed articles directly related to topic for satisfying WP:GNG concerns. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 100% NOT a hoax! This is a real novel fusion concept which uses known physics to accelerate multi-mega-amp-level ion rings to relativistic energies for magneto-inertial-fusion, flash radiography and accessing new high energy density physics regimes. Please review all physics and scientific references before claiming hoax and pushing article deletion. Also, added more relevant references for novel invention. Thank you for your constructive criticism. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only top search hit that looks relevant is a stub webpage for the company. (the link to social media and email are "domain.tld/path") Searching scholar for "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch" returned zero and even without the quotes there didn't seem to be anything related to the article. I would have declined this at WP:AfC. --mikeu ^talk 17:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Typo later fixed. --mikeu ^talk 22:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please review all physics and scientific references before pushing article deletion. Also, added more relevant references for novel invention. Thank you for your constructive criticism. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One of areas that I contribute to at wikipedia is reviewing Draft: articles, a process that we call AfC. One of the things that I look for before moving an article to mainspace (as was done for this article) is: significant coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources. For example: have newspapers written about the topic? is there an article about it in Scientific American? There is a difference between a topic that is notable versus demonstrating that it is by showing that it has been recognized by others not associated with the project. I would be willing to explain this in greater detail if you have questions about the guidelines that we use in these discussions, though we should probably do this on a talk page. You can also request advice from experienced editors on how to improve an article at Wikipedia:Teahouse. mikeu ^talk 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. Added Peer-reviewed journal article. Thank you for your guidance. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, the link to the commercial website is warp-x.carrd.co which contains a slogan ("Warping Spacetime") that is remarkably similar to the original author's username. WP:COI should also be considered here although I WP:AGF that this is merely an enthusiastic support of the invention. The addition of a patent, later changed to a peer reviewed article, both linked to the originator of the idea strengthen my contention that this should be deleted. --mikeu ^talk 23:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Enthusiastic support is not against WP policy. The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion/keep article: Per editors' guidance, added reliable sources via peer-reviewed articles along with US patent and conference presentation [1]-[3] for invention. All other peer-reviewed papers and online reports referenced in the article directly support notability of topic from dense plasma focus z-pinches and ion rings for magneto-inertial fusion and super-radiant x-ray/neutron generation to new high energy density physics regimes [4]-[13]. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote struck - rendered duplicate by a later second !vote from the same User, below. Agricolae (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more peer-reviewed articles directly related to topic for satisfying WP:GNG WarpingSpacetime (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% NOT a hoax! This is a real novel fusion concept which uses known physics to accelerate multi-mega-amp-level ion rings to relativistic energies for magneto-inertial-fusion, flash radiography and accessing new high energy density physics regimes. Please review all physics and scientific references before erroneously claiming hoax and pushing article deletion. Also, calls for this article deletion from others appears to be a conflict of interest since proposed concept is much more cost effective than other high energy particle physics programs which others may be associated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarpingSpacetime (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unclear on the rationale for deletion. Whether or not is a HOAX is not germane to whether or not there should be an article on the topic. We have MANY articles on hoaxes. (See Piltdown man, for example.) What is important is whether the topic is NOTABLE, i.e., has been covered in reliable secondary sources. Before I nominated the article, I did review all of the physics and scientific references I could find on the topic, and there were almost none.

If you are accusing ME of a conflict of interest because I'm associated with a high energy particle physics program, well - that's an easy one to refute, since I'm primarily involved with medical cyclotrons in the 13-20 MeV range, and have no involvement whatsoever in fusion research.

The best way to preserve this article would be to add references to it that specifically refer to THIS particular fusion concept, not the concept of fusion generally. A search for "Wave Accelerated Pinch Reactor" turns up almost nothing that I can find. If you have other sources, please do present them.PianoDan (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial reply was not directed at you. Nevertheless, I appreciate your comment and have added the requested relevant references to novel invention. Thank you for you help! WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the patent establishes that the invention (or at least the idea of the invention) EXISTS. However, what needs to be established is that the idea is NOTABLE, which requires coverage in reliable sources. See WP:RS. PianoDan (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Added refereed journal article. Thanks again! WarpingSpacetime (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you are adding still don't say anything about the specific device that is the topic of the article - they seem to simply be more background. In order to keep this article, there still needs to be demonstrated coverage of this specific device. None of these articles appear to mention the "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor" at all. PianoDan (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep: With due respect, I disagree with your assessment to delete article. References [1]-[3] cover in great detail the WARP Reactor conceptual design with References [4]-[5] delving into the physics behind its operation. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please do not vote twice on the same AfD page.

2. Reference [1] does not actually appear to reference this concept at all, and even if it did, this type of conference website would not meet the definition of a reliable source.

3. Reference [2] is a patent. It does not establish notability, merely existence.

4. Reference [3] appears to talk about a fusion concept close to the one in the article, but does not use the language of the article. It might support the existence of a Wikipedia article on "Field reversed configuration fusion", but not on a "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor," since those words don't actually seem to appear in that order in the article. PianoDan (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the inventor's various peer-reviewed papers directly related to the topic and referenced in the WP article there is also the conference presentation titled "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch eXperiment (WARP X)" by the inventor and subject matter expert which meets the following: WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Material published by the inventor of an idea is pretty much useless for establishing notability of the idea. To establish notability, you need reliable sources that show that other people are discussing the idea. WP:SPS is about verifiability, not notability. An article on an invention needs both.--Srleffler (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear violation of WP: INVENTED. Only two sources are about the reactor itself, and both of them are written by the inventor. There's zero coverage in secondary sources. Tercer (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to the inventor's various peer-reviewed papers directly related to the topic and referenced in the WP article there is also the conference presentation titled "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch eXperiment (WARP X)" by the inventor and subject matter expert which meets the following: WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above. When other people start writing about the idea in reliable sources, it may be ready for Wikipedia. Nothing written by the inventor can establish notability.--Srleffler (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability.--Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To keep this article, we don't need to establish the notability of nuclear fusion or magnetic confinement fusion or any of the other things those references are about. We already HAVE articles on those things. We need to establish the notability of this exact thing, the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. To do that, we would need independent, reliable sources that use the words "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor" in that exact order. If the source doesn't even MENTION the topic of the article, then by definition it doesn't support that the topic is notable, since it didn't take note of it. PianoDan (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SPS Self-published expert sources (See [1], [2]) may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (See [3], [6], [12]) WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access (See [1]-[14]) 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). "The Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch (WARP) Reactor is a novel petawatt-class pulsed power machine . . which promises orders-of-magnitude increase in the generation and acceleration efficiency of ultra-intense high energy ion beams for magneto-inertial confinement fusion, super-radiant flash x-ray/neutron generation and the study of new Relativistic High Energy Density (RHED) physics". WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how else to explain this.

  [1] and [2] may be RELIABLE, (or may not be) but they are not INDPENDENT, so cannot establish notability.

  [3]-[14] don't use the term "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor" anywhere that I can find.

  You can't use articles about similar topics to establish notability for THIS topic. PianoDan (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  [1] is not meant to establish notability. [1] is just to appease the previous request for a reliable source with exact Article Title. Confusion appears to be between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s . . . Also, 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. 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. 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) 20:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the rationale, as explained above, that publications on similar/related topics don't establish a need for an article on this topic. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again . . . 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). Confusion appears to be between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s . . . Also, 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. 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. 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) 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles about fusion generally are not about the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. Articles about magnetic confinement are not articles about Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. Articles about inertial fusion are not about the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reaactor.

  There need to be independent, reliable sources that are DIRECTLY about the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. Quoting Wikipedia guidelines at length does not change the fact that we can't find any independent reliable sources about the actual topic of the article. We don't need articles related topics. We don't need supporting information. We need coverage of the actual subject of the article. PianoDan (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how else to explain this. Reference [4], [5] & [7] discuss directly the WARP Reactor topic for ion ring compression for fusion and radiation sources. These are (along with all other peer-reviewed papers referenced in this WP article) independent, reliable sources DIRECTLY about WARP Reactor topic per WP guidelines. Not acknowledging the above nor the confusion between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s and WP:NPOSSIBLE seems to point to a lack of understanding or reading of the referenced directly relevant peer-reviewed physics articles. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Repeatedly quoting the same guidelines with which we were already familiar before this discussion began does not make for a stronger argument. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed . . . repeatedly quoting the same exact WP guideline is perhaps not very useful assuming those participating in the discussion read the entire transcript. However, reading and acknowledging all WP guidelines as a whole is extremely useful. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2022 (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.