Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendulum rocket fallacy

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. No prejudice against recreating as a redirect to a suitable target, if desired. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 05:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pendulum rocket fallacy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I don't think this concept meets WP:GNG. It seems to be based on a single page/post from someone in 2001, which as far as I can tell is where the term was coined. I'm not even sure of the quality of that source either. Since then, all that seems to exist are things like forum posts that refer back to the original page, or WP's page (or one of the countless mirrors/reprints out there). Searches of older books (that I have access to search) give nothing. I just don't think there's enough to sustain an article here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based solely on a dead self-published web page. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is about a specific claim of a supposed physical principle then it seems to be about a non-notable topic. If it is about the physics of rocket stability then that is certainly a notable topic and one that Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover but WP is still very young and woefully lacking in its coverage of many topics. It could, I suppose, be covered in Flight dynamics (spacecraft) but stability is rather a special case and, I think, mostly applies in the atmosphere. Fighter aircraft are designed to be unstable and maybe rockets are at least accepted to be so. Thincat (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found Attitude control. Thincat (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. The source is a GeoCities page, for crying out loud. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources may be hard to come by, however. Book. Several Youtube videos - this one has 219,000 views. I find discussion of this on several rocket forums as well. Wm335td (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text in that "book" (at least the synopsis) is a verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article, which is what I was alluding to in my original nomination. This is unusable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher of that book is apparently "The". Not a great sign. Also, YouTube videos are almost always unreliable sources, and rocket forums are user-generated content and thoroughly unreliable for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter For sure. That is why I withheld. Forums, and Youtube and self published. What causes me to delay opinion is this concept has had some traction since 2012. Wm335td (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Not enough independant significant coverage that I could see. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/24072-pendulum-rocket-fallacy/ was more informative than the wikipedia article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect ~~or merge~~ to Attitude control. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Geocities? -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept is interesting, but there is zero sourcing that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attitude control or Directional stability. This fallacy is discussed in literature, often with reference to this article: [1], [2], [3], [4]. It appears to be a notabile topic but we are lacking non-circular sources to write a full article on it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what though? The first source you give simply references the Wikipedia article; that's no good. The second source is just the first from a different repository. The third just makes a quick mention of the name while citing the same original webpage. Is it even talking about the same topic? This is an WP:OR minefield. And lastly, the fourth just cites the Wikipedia article (c. 2009) again. Certainly none of why this is considered a "fallacy", especially in regards to the history with Goddard, is reliably sourceable. There's a nontrivial mass of WP:CITOGENESIS here, and we need to tread carefully. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon Vorbis, we agree that the sources are not reliable. I gather that you're arguing that since the material is not reliably sourced, it is not eligible to be merged. I disagree per WP:DEMOLISH. Looking at this a bit closer, I have uncovered Directional stability as an alternative merge target. ~Kvng (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to attitude control ~~Robert H. Goddard~~ since it fails WP:GNG for seperate article.~~ --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking attitude control because it deals with the spacecraft attitude control. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, normally that might be reasonable, but there's no reliably sourced content here to merge, which is what I was trying to get at above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking back to Robert H. Goddard. Attitude control is now an aerospace concept, not just a spacecraft concept. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (edit conflict)Rockets and space travel go together so the fact that thank attitude control deals with the spacecraft is appropriate. Thank you Thincat and Kvng. WP:ATD-M very good merge target. If we could find sources I would say keep. As it stands the Kvng sources seem to indicate that a merge is best. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ or Delete depending on consensus. If anything, it belongs in attitude control or rocketry. The sources used (a YouTube video) are not WP:RS and should not be included in either case. I lean towards Delete for now. MrAureliusR_Talk! 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote to Delete, I really don't see the sourcing issues being fixed any time soon, and it doesn't seem to meet WP:N. MrAureliusR_Talk! 20:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I would add this as a source to this article, but there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page, and I will not feed those who will say I am edit warring. Vermeulen, Arthur; Netherlands Defence Academy; Helder, Den (April 21, 2016) [2010]. "Missile Design: a Challenging Example for Control Education". IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 42 (24). The Netherlands: Elsevier: 65–70. doi:10.3182/20091021-3-JP-2009.00014. Retrieved September 30, 2020. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To decide the fate of this material, we need a better handle on the sources that have been presented. This is my take:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Swpb
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bowery		self-published; not enough info about "Jim Bowery" to establish expertise	thorough discussion of the topic	? Unknown
Dax		The "text" of this "book" is a copy-paste of the article. This is not a source at all.		✘ No
Lima, Gonçalves, Costa, Moreira		Presumably reliable academic source	Based on abstract alone, this has tangential relevance that may be used to reference statements, but does not appear to speak to notability of the rocket fallacy	? Unknown
Manley video		~ Manley is an astrophysicist by degree, not a totally random youtuber. Whether you take this as sufficient expertise or not, the form of the source does not moot the expertise.		~ Partial
Vermulen	the only reference to the fallacy in this paper is a citation of this Wikipedia article	Presumed	significant discussion of rocket attitude and the thrust vector, but not the fallacy as such	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The pendulum rocket fallacy is a real thing that could stand alone if better sources could be presented, but given this current set, I lean toward merging to attitude control, and citing Bowery and Manley there. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swpb You missed this one. Vermeulen, Arthur; Netherlands Defence Academy; Helder, Den (April 21, 2016) [2010]. "Missile Design: a Challenging Example for Control Education". IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 42 (24). The Netherlands: Elsevier: 65–70. doi:10.3182/20091021-3-JP-2009.00014. Retrieved September 30, 2020. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That paper's only reference to the fallacy is a citation back to this Wikipedia article, but sure, I'll add it to the table if you want. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: I found eswiki and frwiki versions of this article. Should their cited sources be assessed for this article? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They just cite the same Bowery source and a Reddit thread, so no. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Swpb. Reyk _YO! 16:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting concept and a wrong-headed theory. Finding sources that are not from the Wikipedia article itself is problematical. The prior poorly referenced/cited version of the article here had a lot more information deserves your consideration, but wound up on the cutting room floor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong? The lack of content isn't the problem, it's the insufficiency of sourcing. If you've got more sources to look at, bring them. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you. I understand that the sources are the problem. The deleted content is there (and that's why I mentioned it), but we still need sources. If that can't be cured, than it should be MERGEd. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because there doesn't appear to be any RS we can use to cite this content on any page. The article begins The pendulum rocket fallacy is a common fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of rocket flight ... well, how common can it be if we can't even find a reliable source talking about it? Bowery and Manley are self-published sources and there doesn't appear to evidence of their expertise sufficient to satisfy WP:SPS. The other sources are unreliable for reasons explained above. If we had an RS, then I'd say merge, but so long as we don't, it should just be deleted. Otherwise we risk that this is a type of hoax, or at least, there is no support for our stating that this is a "common" fallacy, and we don't need to be covering obscure fallacies that are not covered in reliable secondary sources. Our job is to summarize reliable secondary sources, and here we have none to summarize. Le v!v ich 17:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found some reliable sources about Goddard's flight but they don't well describe the fallacy. I have deleted the OR explanation of the fallacy and marked it historical, since no rocketeers have ever tried the pendulum design of a rocket after Goddard. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an obvious "merge" or "delete". Why edit war about including the link? My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to rocket. Parts of this article have been properly sourced. Unsourced materials are removed. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This doesn't seem to be used for anything but Robert H. Goddard's early work. I watched a YouTube video explaining it, it just his mistake he made with one of his rockets. Not sure why it got its own name. He made a mistake thinking that having the fuel at the bottom to stabilize it, and the rocket at the top, would make it balance out. First rocket he fired like this went off course, and proved that wrong. No sense having a name for every single mistake anyone ever made. Dream Focus 01:33, 4 October 2020 (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.