Talk:Magnetic motor

This article consisted almost entirely of unsourced pseudoscientific hogwash.
I have tagged the more blatant weasel-wording, and added a little clarification regarding its basis in pseudoscience, but I note that the article is almost entirely unsourced - and without secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that the topic matter is notable, the article will need to be deleted. And please note that Free Energy News and related websites (pesn.com etc) aren't remotely reliable sources for such material, and neither can they be cited to establish notability - per WP:FRINGE, such pseudoscientific topics are only considered notable if they have been discussed extensively in sources other than those promoting the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fails notability?
Our requirement for an article to exist is in part that it must meet WP:NOTE.


 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"

We the "reliable sources" and "independent of the subject" parts are contested here. What scientific journals that are acceptable to WP:RS discuss these impossible devices?

It's hard to believe that there are reliable sources that say anything other than that they can't exist. Our mention of these devices in Perpetual motion seems adequate...also, there is considerable overlap with Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT).

I strongly suggest that this article become a redirect to the appropriate section of that article.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought that the SMOT was a particular instance of a 'magnetic motor', if anything. Not that it really matters - as redirect to perpetual motion will be perfectly adequate unless proper sourcing can be found, as there is nothing to include in SMOT without it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I redirected to induction motor because I thought that would be a plausible redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that something a little more than a simple redirect is in order. Certainly if someone is searching for "magnetic motor", intending to read about the claimed PMM, a redirect to Induction motor won't please them and won't teach them anything either. Maybe a disambig page? Jeh (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And, indeed, within the Perpetual Motion article, under "Techniques", there's a link to magnetic motor which was clearly supposed to be to the old page and is meaningless now that it redirects to Induction motor. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed by removing the brackets. :) But I think this still needs to be a disambig page. Any objections? Jeh (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there might be a place for an actual article. (If not, yes, a disambiguation page would be preferable to a redirect.) I took a stab at a rewrite; see User:Scs/drafts/Magnetic motor.  At the moment much of that text is off the top of my head, but I think we could easily find good sources for everything I've said.  What do you think? —Steve Summit (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)