Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman
- 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 keep. Whether the article should be moved is outside the remit of AfD. Kurykh 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman
Sorry, I have to try again, getting this non-article deleted.
- Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Newman (inventor)
It got worse.
Whereas arguments can be provided (not all good ones IMHO), to keep articles about notable crackpots, I don't see how their "inventions" can become encyclopedic -- at least until reliable, third-party, sources and presence in mainstream media come into play.
But this current article is just a distilled backup copy of JosephNewman.com.
Yes, there is media presence demonstrated in the article, but it describes the inventor, not the invention.
--Pjacobi (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ:
- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4305182
- http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1983%2F00963&IA=WO1983%2F00963&DISPLAY=STATUS
- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0429315/
- I'm not sure how these sources can point to a distilled "backup copy" of JosephNewman.com.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See e.g. self description of "Beyond Invention": Beyond Invention is a series about the scientists, inventors and researchers -- a biography source, but not a source which tells us about the workings on an electric device -- some IEEE or IET jornal article would be called for.
- The wipo.int link doesn't help at all -- patents aren't sources for anything, except the date a patent claim was filed and granted.
- The Science News article would be a fine biography source and is a good a but singulat third party reliable source for anything about the device, the efficency. That's fine. But it doesn't say a bleep about the alleged working and buildup of the machine -- which is as of now the central point of our non-article.
- --Pjacobi (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This renom is null via ]
Another problem: The pictures provided are original research by Kmarinas86 himself. --
- What pictures of this electric motor wouldn't be? We're just going to leave the article without pictures of what the motor even looks like?Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:No original research#Original Images.Kmarinas86 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| “ | Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role."
A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. |
” |
- Very, well. But how do you assert equivalence of your demonstration model and Joseph Newman's? Your model and photograph would be fine illustrating a simple DIY DC permanent magnet motor (demonstrating that it is not necessary to reverse the current flow, but only to switch it of for 180°). Or do you claim to have observed over-unity-performance and mass loss? In fact, as Newman's motor distinguishes itself only by the immaterial claims, it is hard to get a photograph or image of any sort capturing this. It's like trying to photograph Holy water to show its different to plain water. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that in previous versions of the article, the caption said the model is "a replica" of the Newman machine. Restoring that wording would help. -talk) 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that in previous versions of the article, the caption said the model is "a replica" of the Newman machine. Restoring that wording would help. -
- Keep and Move back to Joseph Newman (inventor) - The article was moved on 11 December. It should be moved back. As regards notability, Newman and his invention are one entity. The invention is not notable of itself, but as a part of his struggle for recognition (if I threw in "quixotic", would be over the top?). Seriously though, there is no point in having an article about the invention but not the inventor. --Alfadog (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Move - The article appears to be sourced sufficiently and I see little value in removing it. Morphh (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the talk) 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move back, and possibly rewrite the article a little so it is about him. He is a notable crackpot. I dont think the machine is separately notable. His notability is a combination of the machine, the theory, and the court case. DGG (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2007 (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.