Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searl Effect Generator
No reliable third party sources, only in-universe view, only fan fiction as source. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure. There is a serious verifiability problem, and science doesn't get much more fringe than this, but Searl's claims do have some presence on the internet, and increasingly that it being cited as a justification for retaining this kind of article. Perhaps merge with John Searl? LeContexte (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article could certainly be improved, but I can't see any justification for bringing it to AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Alas, this isn't fiction. I guess it must be notable as free energy devices go, since it seems to be 50 years old. So keep. Ben Standeven (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)- Keep (what the heck is a "speedy" keep?) - this is a well-known "energy" device. The article could be improved, but the current lack of improvement isn't a reason to delete. =Axlq (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)