Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean pressure electric conversion

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean pressure electric conversion

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

A cranky idea that violates the second law of thermodynamics. While there is indeed a pressure differential between the surface and the depths of the ocean, useful energy can't be extracted from it since its energy is not Gibbs free energy. Yet another non-notable scientific hoax, I'm afraid. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this is not a policy-based reason for deleting an article. Though Dyson sphere and Transatlantic tunnel may violate laws of the universe and economic laws, they are cited and sourced concepts—and justifiable articles—for other reasons. This article can probably be deleted for lacking sources and hence lacking notability. —EncMstr (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, One of the references is rather literally done in crayon; and rather than explain the scientific issues here, let's just say that the other reference mentions how the fifty-something accountant 'always interested in science' can't get a patent because of the perpetual motion-y aspects of the supposed design. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Y'know, since deleting the article wont stop anyone searching for it, is there any sort of 'list of perpetual motion/free energy proposals' that this particular term could be directed to? Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a fringe theory, it is out there and as such, it is notable to have its own article. It probably needs rewriting to say that this is hypotetical/fringe theory, and to be re-categorized accordingly (Category:Fringe theories or Category:Pseudoscience). Beagel (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article's creator and primary contributor is RickDick2, a SPA presumably belonging to the same Richard Dixon mentioned as the inventor. So there is clear self-promotion going on here. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The policy-based reason for deletion is that the topic isn't notable. It has not received significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources. I disagree with Beagel that it is notable simply because it is "out there". There are plenty of fringe science topics that have received the sort of coverage required for notability on Wikipedia. This isn't one of them. LonelyBoy2012 points out likely self promotion and conflict of interest on the part of the author. By itself, that would not be enough for deletion. In combination with the lack of good sources, though, it strengthens the case for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previous article was not relevant.Keystoner idin (speak) 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That NOAA article is about Ocean thermal energy conversion, which is a different concept than this one (and unlike this one, OTEC actually has scientific backing). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Cullen and Darryl. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scientific rubbish of which no significant notice has been taken. EEng (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no reliable sources. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2012 (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.