Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overunity

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. There also seems to be consensus to redirect to perpetual motion, so more of a delete and redirect. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overunity

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

Apparently non-notable fringe theory. I can't find any worthwhile independent sources (most are from the hypothesis's main proponent, a Tom Bearden). The closest I can get is this, an article that, as near as I can tell, was never actually published in any journal, and this, an article (written by a "science journalist") that a) ridicules both the theory itself and Bearden's credentials and b) suggests that "very few [physicists and experts] will consider it worth their time even to read the book", which in turn suggests that the theory itself is not notable. A redirect to perpetual motion might be acceptable, since they're more or less the same idea. It was such a redirect in the past, but the current primary article author has reverted the redirect twice, so I think a more structured discussion is in order. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WritKeeper has explained it well. Also worth noting is that the article says "One of the purposes of this article is to give credibility to the experimenters . . ." That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't promote credibility- that is done by reliable sources, not us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google is, of couse, riddled with false positives, but it doesn't look like the necessary coverage is out there. The "credibility" sentence practically serves as proof that this article is unencyclopedic, anyways. As a side note, does anybody else find it odd that about half of the external links have nothing to do with overunity but instead deal with physics in general? CtP (t • c) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's never a good sign when an article's shortcomings are ascribed to unspecified forces intent on censorship [1]. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's effectively a pov-fork of perpetual motion. bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate as a Redirect to perpetual motion, and lock per WP:RNEUTRAL:2. It is a well known term in the fringe community and likely to be a search term used by some so having it as a redirect would be useful. Might even educate some people. But it needs to be locked to prevent free energy nutters from recreating it again. GDallimore (Talk) 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as per GDallimore. - Mr X 03:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Firstmm5 has added some references, but (as I've told them on their talk page) they're all inadmissible, and most of them are to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, as prior to recent edits. ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to Perpetual motion as done for Over unity, Over-unity and Overunity motor. Whether or not the term is used differently than 'perpetual motion' should be mentioned there, backed up by reliable sources. I don't see anything else worth salvaging. — HHHIPPO 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is cobbled together from poor sourcing, or no sourcing at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:14, 26 February 2013 (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.