Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searl Effect Generator (2nd nomination)


 * 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 the sources just don't stack up the one RS is for the less notable electricity theft rather than the SEG. See also Articles for deletion/John Searl. --Salix (talk): 08:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Searl Effect Generator
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non-notable perpetual motion machine. The references in the existing article are very poor and there doesn't seem to be any decent sources out there so that it meets GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BALETE. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I looked at the available sources when researching a closely related AfD.  The nominator is essentially correct, in that there aren't any reliable independent sources about this machine.  There are merely a handful of distinctly fringe publications.  Jakew (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete whatever the sources, and they look flaky enough at a glance, anything that claims to work by violating the laws of thermodynamics is basically Utter Non-Science (to be as polite as possible). There's nothing like a salvageable article in any of the material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to John Searl. There is certainly some notability here, given the many references to the SEG, although it's all WP:FRINGE. -- 203.171.197.232 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The references in the article are mostly unreliable; the only reliable sources are about the energy theft conviction (which don't really have any bearing to this article). As such the article fails all notability tests. Fringe sources by their very nature should not be used to establish due weight. We should be looking for signficant coverage by independent, reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to John Searl. Enough sources, but adds to John Searl's article and is mainly linked to it. --Any replies should keep a copy on my talk &#62;&#62; (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which sources are you referring to? I suggest you look at the quality of the sources in the article at present. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Totally non-notable perpetual motion device. Such devices are not even within the rather open boundaries of fringe science, but psuedoscience, and only belong hee when they are of historical importance or truly notable nonsense. `  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to John Searl where the SEG is discussed. The self-published sources are valid for verifiability about the claims made by the author, so a short description of the device would be a good fit in that article. Diego (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except if there are no reliable sources for the section then it's undue weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:57, 8 March 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.