Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEAS


 * 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. - Bobet 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

SEAS

 * - (View AfD) (View log)


 * Spam / claim to have developed a perpetual motion machine? Redirect to Seas, as SEAS usually means "School of Engineering and Applied Science". Anthony Appleyard 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone, this is not spam, this organization is legitimate and I am trying to develop this article as we speak, so we can please remove the deletion request, thanks! -nima baghaei 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - db-corp. Makes no claim to notability -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What notability? What should I do to stop it?  Can you guys please guide me how I can improve this article instead of speedy delete, geez im still working on this article to, so stop pushing it please? (:O\ -nima baghaei 23:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines for this sort of article are at WP:CORP. It's also at risk from two of the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:CSD - A7, no assertion of notability, and G11, blatant advertising.  This AfD should run for five days - if you can provide evidence from reliable sources that this organization meets the criteria within that time, the article can stay. Tevildo 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete db-corp. JuJube 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I will work do my best to improve it, just give me 5 days please -nima baghaei 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still developing it (:O) -nima baghaei 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its growing nicely (:O) ... I honestly think its time to remove the deletion box -nima baghaei 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, is it possible to remove the deletion box and put this as a Stub that is still growing? I wanted to use an energry company stub (I have seen some VERY short articles on other chemical companies that have stubs on them instead of deletion). -nima baghaei 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still developing the article, but it would be nice if we could remove the deletion box and just leave it as a stub so others can help in the future (:O) -nima baghaei 23:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't doubt that the organisation exists, but why is it more notable than any other bunch of nutters ? We need to see notability. If they can build a PM machine and get it accepted by serious referees, they're notable. Or if they manage to fool a large number of people with their drivel, they're notable. Otherwise, they're just another bunch of cranks or frauds, and there are plenty of those already. WMMartin 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. A reference has already been provided with a picture of the actual device. -66.163.85.210 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, take a look at some of the energy papers they published, thats some intense data. One of the articles is the briefing they gave the US Senate  -66.163.85.210 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome deal, I just added the Senate Hearings in 2000 that talks about SEAS going to Capital Hill and giving a hearing to the senate (:O) -nima baghaei 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Decision here depends on whether SEAS's device works. It still from the description sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the device works, check out the reference, by the way for them to get a chance to meet with the Senate on capitol hill shows how serious this company is being taken, and yes once again, the device(s) do work -nima baghaei 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Over unity devices do work by the way, Tom Bearden who is working with SEAS has produced one and has even got a U.S. patent on it! (:O) Page 2 - US Patent -nima baghaei 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the official US Patent page for Tom Beardens over-unity device, and you cant get a patent unless the device does what it says it does (:OP -nima baghaei 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that's just factually wrong: patents are frequently awarded for things that don't work, especially PM machines. This is a common misconception. Patents must simply claim a novelty of idea; they don't actually have to work. WMMartin 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable pseudoscience. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)±


 * Do not Delete - Once again, I have given you a patent above, they have even talked to the senate, I have given you a picture of one of their devices with refernces, and I have really updated this page -nima baghaei 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - he is right, this article is well documented, from the senate hearing to the reference and picture of one of their devices, and that patent above is legitimate over unity device -129.7.127.46 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree also, this is a wonderful article and I have learned a lot from reading it. -66.163.85.206 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that this RfD has been peppered with comments from which essentially are this user's assertion of Keep.  However, it appears that the user is shilling, or at the very least votestacking, with anonymous IPs:, , . If my assumption is correct, the summary so far for thie AfD is:
 * 1 to Redirect to Seas
 * 4 to Delete, 2 speedy.
 * 1 to Keep from the author mentioned above.
 * (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have given you wonderful data, so this article should stay (:O) -nima baghaei 18:36, 20 January 2007 (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.