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. I agree with LeContexte above, both Searl Effect Generator and John Searl are short enough articles that they could be merged, although I'd probably merge the bio article into the device article, not the other way round, because the device is what makes Searl notable. I have therefore initiated a merge proposal on Talk:Searl Effect Generator. =Axlq (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
My original deletion rationale seems to be too terse. Let me elaborate a bit. Perpetual motion devices are fiction. As such, they are only in so far relevant to us, as they left significant traces in the real world, e.g. some million dollars from gullible investors vanished or a good enough publicity stunt by the inventors to get mainstream media coverage. It is not our business to mirror Free Energy websites like http://www.americanantigravity.com/, http://www.peswiki.com or the Naudin site. Even with constant purging of the most offending ones, we now again have more than 70 links to http://www.americanantigravity.com/! Isn't it mentioned in our policies to use unreliable sources only -- if at all -- in articles about themselves? The typical example given on policy pages tends to be stormfront.org, but in terms of unreliability americanantigravity.com is second to none. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)