Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perendev motor

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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perendev motor

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

not notable magnetic Perpetual motion machine. Aslo, was a spam Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/perendev-power.com a5b (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rescue:' The article in its current form is a bad stub. However, as a part of the history of perpetual motion machines, an article on this topic is a Very Good Idea. I'll rescue it if given a chance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thus failing notability and verifiability. What is there to rescue? Edison (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally believe the Wiki is precisely the place to talk about these bogus devices, to counteract all the crapola floating around the internet. It is, for instance, the very first place I go when looking for information on things I might ingest. I will get to this article in its proper time, and if I can't beat it into something presentable, then by all means, AfD it again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Maury sees some potential to turn this into more than the uninformative and unsourced article that it is now-- basically, it's an excuse to say the words "Perendev motor"-- I'm in favor of a rescue attempt. It won't take long to see if there can be some notability, such as prominent mention in magazines or books about inventions (or bad investments) touted as "perpetual motion machines". There's not enough at the moment to even make it a redirect or a mention in another article. Mandsford 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete No book hits, all news hits are press releases. There's a lot of web discussion but so far I can't see anyhting that says much more than what we have now. Perhaps merge into perpetual motion as an example. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. I agree with Maury Markowitz's point that this site can serve as a great go-to resource filtering a small amount of good information from a large amount of chaff, but I am not finding in depth coverage by independent sources sufficient to write an article. No problem moving it to user space or Wikipedia:Article Incubator. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete: Actually in retrospect I think what we need is an entirely new article on all of these related devices. This would include a merge of the existing Adams motor, and many, many many many others. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of perpetual motion machines has a partial list. I think that there has been discussion (at Talk:Perpetual motion, maybe?) regarding the difficulty maintaining such a list. Modern perpetual motion machines tend not to call themselves perpetual motion machines because, well, everybody knows perpetual motion machines are impossible so nobody would ever invest/take the time to investigate/whatever. This creates sourcing difficulties, especially since by and large they are ignored and dismissed anyway. List of perpetual motion machines might be viable anyway, though, if you want to give it a whirl. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinct class in this case is the "magnet motor", which they all seem to call themselves. I think it's reasonably distinct from such devices as over-balanced arms and such. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2011 (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.