Deletion of Gas tube rocket hypersonic launcher

Comment: Agreed with iridescenti. While they fail the independence qualification of , the articles appear to describe the inventions of A. Bolonkin neutrally and are informative. I would invoke  unless other concerns are raised
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IGNORE)

Comment: Original research" is research that is published nowhere other than Wikipedia; relying on someone's own research published elsewhere is not original research, be it a peer reviewed conference or not &mdash; the |reliable sources policy governs that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Original research" is research that is published nowhere other than Wikipedia; someone's own research published elsewhere is not original research. Refer to #Citing oneself and #Citing oneself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:COI)

Comment: I add a '''strong delete''' for Earth–Moon Cable Transport System to my previous opinion.  This is blatantly |original research, and the more I look at the other topics the same applies to them too.  (Even if you can make a case the this marginaly gets past  it utterly fails .)  We already have a featured article on the space elevator.  Dr. Bolonkin's jury-rigged ideas need not be confused with it.  It also occurs to me that the editor responsible for all of this is most likely Dr. Bolonkin, making their creation a violation of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOR||WP:ATT||WP:COI)

Comment: This is '''''not''' original research'' per #Citing oneself, #Self-published sources (online and paper), #Citing yourself and #Citing oneself. Get your facts straight
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:ATT||WP:COI)