Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldo Costa (inventor)


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Aldo Costa (inventor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an inventor who claims to have created a perpetual motion machine. However, there are really not enough sources to really make any claim of notability. Of the sources presented in this article, only the Wired article can be seen as reliable, and even that seems more of a fluff piece than anything else. The only other source is the appearance of the individual in a documentary that, itself, is unnotable. Upon searching for additional sources, the only reliable one I found that mentioned the name was here. However, he is only mentioned extremely briefly in a footnote, and only to talk about how his invention, and the documentary it appeared in, are nothing but minor works of fringe theory. Hardly the kind of coverage needed to support notability. Rorshacma (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any reliable sources, other than the three already mentioned by the nominator. Not enough to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Practically no biographical information. The source can be used to say something about his contraption in the article on perpetual motion or something similar. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The wired ref is a good start but multiple sources are required to establish notability. I did not find others. -—Kvng 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.