Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Bearden


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas E. Bearden

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete OK, this chap is quite evidently a "Scientific" crackpot who believes in Russian time-machine and perpetual motion devices etc.. That's verified - mainly from his own website. However, despite extensive talk page discussion, there is simply no evidence (secondary sources) that he's notable at all. We can verify he exists and that he holds these views, but so what? We could redirect to one of his theories, but a merger has been resisted on the talk page. So, unless someone can find strong secondary evidence to support notability, this should probably be deleted. Scott Mac 15:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete He get coverage on blogs etc. And he may even be well-known (?) in certain conspiracy theory circles. But these theories and the people putting them forward tend to be very fleeting. Tomorrow there will be a new theory and a new person putting it forwards. WP:N requires that notability be permanent. Will anyone remember or care about this person in 50 years ? The answer is: most likely not. Travelbird (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete "Notability" is always a problematic concept when comes to crackpots like Bearden, in that NO, he has not contributed anything noteworthy; however, I think educating people about folks like him is a very useful application of Wikipedia. A short stroll through Google or Youtube will show you that Bearden is a major player in the world of "Free energy" (see, for example this, this and this). Yes, it's clear to anyone with a science background that this guy's a nut, but a lot of people take him seriously and it's good to have a place to go where they can learn the truth.  One could argue to delete his article and just keep the MEG article, but I believe it's important to view his claims about the MEG in the context of his other crazy claims. Veering slightly OT, I'll add that when Wikipedia first came out, my prediction was that it would quickly fill with articles fully supporting free energy, UFO abductions, the lunar landing hoax, etc, and I feel that fact that all of those topics (and this one) are actually covered with proper skepticism is a great tribute to the success and a vital application of the model.Prebys (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't keep or delete on the basis of "educating people". What we need is reliable secondary sourcing indicating his significance as an individual. We need the article to tell us why he matters, and not just what he believes. This discussion will hinge on whether independent sourcing shows his notability - that and that alone.--Scott Mac 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into Motionless electromagnetic generator. There's barely enough reliable secondary sources available on Bearden to justify a paragraph or so there. Get rid of all the "Bearden claims X" material sourced to Bearden's own websites, papers, and books. If someone wants to "warn" people about Bearden, base it on published 3rd party criticism, or open a website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete People should not be censored because of their believes, however unorthodox those believes may be. As stated below, Tom Bearden is an important part of the free energy movement and as such he deserves a mention on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia becomes too mainstream it will share the same fate as everything else mainstream in this world, it will loose its meaning. No one has the right to dictate what is knowledge and what is not, provide people with as much information as possible and allow people to choose that for themselves. Removing this entry would push Bearden and the free energy movement further into obscurity, and to do that because you do not subscribe to the same universe would be your fault not his. Inflexible preconceptions have kept humanity from realizing its full potential for too long. Look at the case of Nikola Tesla, the man was deemed a crackpot by the mainstream scientific community and that led to his name vanishing from mainstream science and his contributions to humanity being ascribed to other, more conforming, individuals or not mentioned at all. What state would humanity be in today if it wasn't for Tesla and people, some would call "on the fringe", like him? If the catholic church had its way we would still be in the dark ages, if that doesn't help you see light I don't know what will. Having said all this, I hope someone with more knowledge of Tom Bearden, his life and his work/claims comes along and turns this article into something more than the same old accusations people who do not live in streams have tired of hearing. A. Freeman 09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to MEG per WP:BIO (and spirit of WP:BLP1E lack of independent notability. Despite talk-page promises that there are sources attesting to notability of this person himself apart from just being someone involved in a notable field or device, none appear to have been provided. He may be lots of things to lots of people and have the potential to...develop or become important in his field according to independent sources, but according to WP:RS at this time, does not appear to be. Promising-future-notable people and not-yet-discovered geniuses are out of scope for WP. We really are a mainstream publication, or at least strictly require reasonably mainstream or at least independent sources. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (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.