Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veljko Milković (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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Veljko Milković
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person has not received notice outside his own little parochial community of true believing proponents. He is not notable neither as an author nor an inventor. It is likely that the entire article is set-up mainly as a soapbox. Previous AfD claimed independent sources, but they do not contain any usuable information on the person and certainly don't justify an entire article devoted to him (people who just do Google searches and don't actually read the sources shouldn't be commenting that sources exist!). Also, there were obviously some shill !votes at that AfD made by his supporters. There may be room for mere mention of him in other locations (our future Serbian perpetual motion enthusiasts article, for example). However, we should delete as a violation of biographical notability ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all sources are considering him as an inventor or describing his inventions - over 21,000 results in Google search, also all references and independent sources listed in Wikipedia are about him, his work, inventions etc . Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And how do you know him again? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Condicio sine qua non - I agree we should look through the independent sources we can find - here is the list of some independent sources I have found, so please first read all of them before any further conclusion or doubt (links are translated in English by Google Translate):


 * Danas - a newspaper article about his eco-house
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his eco-house building concept
 * Planeta magazine - an article about healthy and sick houses mentioning Milkovic’s eco house concept and the presentation of that concept in Milano and Tokio
 * Politika - a newspaper article about Milkovic’s solar sod (eco house)
 * 24 sata - a newspaper article about about Milkovic’s solar sod
 * Blic - a newspaper article about the famouse inventors and discoveries from Novi Sad and Milkovic gravitational machine
 * Glas Javnosti - a newspaper article about Milkovic’s impulse gravity machines
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his invention – mechanical oscillator
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his invention (hand water pump with a pendulum)
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his invention (hand water pump with a pendulum)
 * Vecernje Novosti - a newspaper article about his invention (two-stage mechanical oscillator)
 * Vecernje Novosti - a newspaper article about his invention (two-stage mechanical oscillator)
 * Vecernje Novosti - a newspaper article about his machine, patents, academician title
 * Ilustrovana Politika - a newspaper article about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress
 * 24 sata - a newspaper article about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress
 * Gradjanski list - a newspaper article about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his eco-house, his early research, inventions, exploration of Petrovaradin fortress, award
 * University of Novi Sad and Dnevnik - an announcement about the cultural evening on the eco architecture
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his public lecture on archaeological discoveries on Petrovaradin fortress
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his archaeological research of Middle Danube basin
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his archaeological research and touristical potentials of Middle Danube basin
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his award “November charter of the city of Novi Sad”
 * Danas - a newspaper article about his award “November charter of the city of Novi Sad”
 * Glas Javnosti - a newspaper article about his award “November charter of the city of Novi Sad”
 * Chamber of Commerce of Vojvodina - about his presentation of inventions
 * A movie about Milkovic
 * Blic - a newspaper article about the movie where Milkovic had the main role
 * Gradjanski list - a newspaper article about the movie where Milkovic had the main role
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about the movie where Milkovic had the main role
 * Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his book in Esperanto
 * Milkovic invention described in a book written by American writer
 * Milkovic’s books in the Library of Congress, USA
 * Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his eco-house
 * Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his invention (big hammer)
 * Magyar Szó - a paper in Hungarian about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress
 * Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress
 * Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his public lecture on Petrovaradin fortress and archaelogical findings


 * To be fair over 35 third party sources are more than enough we conclude he is pretty much notable. Ternit (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not a problem of sources (Serbian perpetual motion enthusiasts sometimes write about his "inventions"), it's a question of reliable sources.  He has received little to no attention outside his town, and most of the sources from his town are credulous.  For example, 11 of your sources come from the Dnevnik newspaper.  Read the first six paragraphs of this credulous and rather amusing article (which merely credulously repeats his own claims here) and you'll see that it Dnevnik cannot be considered a reliable for facts about him.  A reliable source is something indepedent with a reputation for fact checking.  Many of the articles are about his house as well, and not him.  How are we to create a balanced, verifiable article from unreliable sources? Phil153 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources??!? I don't know if you looked at the above list but I listed over 35 sources and almost all of these sources have its own Wikipedia article where you can check who they are. Dnevnik is one of the oldest daily and I didn't list 11 equal sources; Dnevnik wrote 11 times on 7 different topics. I don't know what you have against Dnevnik, but it looks you didn't read other articles from Dnevnik. The article you mentioned is a reportage covering all what he was researching by that time. So the fact is there are over 35 reliable third-party sources on internet (probably there are more in printed versions) and it cannot be claimed they are unreliable sources just because of your interpretation of a part of one article (one of 35+ sources!). Every biography contains the details on what some person did or achieved, I don't know what you expect to read in the newspaper articles - what did he eat, how does he look like? It is normal the biography describes what some person did, made, succeeded... and his eco-house is something what he did and if the newspaper or institution writes about that it is the part of author's biography. Constantly repeating "perpetual motion" as it is the main and single topic (usually inappropriate) in this article shows us you didn't or don't want to look at other facts (for example; his simple invention with a pendulum and lever works and does useful job like a hand water pump with a pendulum and only the claim and description of machine characteristics that it produces more energy could be considered as a first assumption that one perpetuum mobile could exist - again this claim doesn't mean this invention doesn't work and that is useless) and this tell us you cannot judge clearly and independently here. The article was very well edited and now shortly and independenlty presents his life and achievements with the third-party sources. Ternit (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you have against Dnevnik: this says all that needs to be said about Dnevnik as far as RS go. The fact they're the oldest newspaper doesn't bode well for the other sources from the same city. Phil153 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you explain what is the article about and what's that what is inappropriate there instead of just posting the links to it without any argument? I can read it reports on his eco-house, Wikipedia, his early research, inventions, exploration of Petrovaradin fortress, awards... (if you didn't maybe understand something, no problem I can re-translate you again) Are you going to try to persuade us that Dnevnik (the significant daily) is not reliable source; are we going to reject, for example, this info about the city award just because Dnevnik reported on that?? Does it mean we will say there was no award?? Even if we would not look at the newspapers from his town there are still enough third party sources on the above list reporting on the subject of this article. Please don't post such bad arguments. Ternit (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: non-notable pseudoscientist, who has received no mainstream coverage, making it impossible to create a balanced, sourced article on him. HrafnTalkStalk 01:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Notable pseudoscientist/inventor, who received multiple awards and is covered by multiple independent valid sources. Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one paragraph in the whole text of the article is about the topic that is usually classified as the pseudoscience, everything else is not - confirmed and applied inventions  in many areas with notable awards  and public attention, so we cannot look at this article as a pure pseudoscience topic. Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: the only non-trivial third-party sources cited in the article are for his pseudoscientific activities. Therefore, per WP:DUE, it is reasonable to consider him to be primarily a pseudoscientist. HrafnTalkStalk 04:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For example, is non-trivial third-party source, and it talks about his passive house, exploration of Petrovaradin fortress and whatnot. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is without foundation -- that article likewise talks about his pseudoscientific perpetual motion 'inventions'. That it appears to give them credibility is further reason to question this source's credibility. HrafnTalkStalk 09:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, among the WP:SELFPUB material that Nikola reintroduced (which I reverted), I found this article (translation here), that appears to be describing Milković's work on perpetual motion. Can you get any more blatantly pseudoscientific? And given that, as far as I can tell from the translation, the source is taking these claims seriously, it does not appear to be particularly reliable. HrafnTalkStalk 05:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not taking these claims seriously, it is neutral towards them. "And this knocking - Milkovic claims to have proven - contains more energy than the one needed..." I agree this is stupid - I disagree that it makes him non-notable. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are taking a single, ambiguous word "knock" (which, in the context of talking about a "hammer" could mean the word in its mechanical, as opposed to its figurative, meaning), to indicate that the entire article is neutral is an extreme stretch -- and a clear indication of why a good translation is needed before we can accept any of the Serbian sources as a reliable source. Apparently-credulous reports in a small, foreign-language news source is hardly the basis for a quality article. HrafnTalkStalk 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I note that the previous AfD hinged on their being independent reliable sources... and yet, almost two years later, no one has bothered to actually add any independant reliable sources to the article.  That tells me one of two things... either 1) someone has looked into the sources mentioned at the first AfD and has determined that they are not reliable after all, or 2) no one cared enough about this article to fix it.  Either way, I think the fact that it is still poorly sourced argues strongly against a keep this second time around.  Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that it is poorly sourced because someone went ahead and deleted all the valid sources. Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the sources you just introduced, they were removed as self-published (per WP:SELFPUB) -- from www.veljkomilkovic.com HrafnTalkStalk 04:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not introduced, but reintroduced them, some are self-published, some are not. Please, do remove self-published ones, do not remove those that are not. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Vsmith (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong - in order not to be mentioned just English and Serbian independent sources, there are 5 third-party references, for example, in Hungarian language     Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. ringspam, no proper references for the claims made since 2006 Mion (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I must point out that between August 14 and September 7 I edited this article quite extensively: see diff:  and "Edit summary". I judged a number of references inadequate. Quite a few were links to the homepage, a number were not in English and could therefore not be verified, a number were general promotional stories. A number that I had removed were replaced by another editor (himself?). I left it at that time, not knowing how to deal with it otherwise. ---VanBurenen (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted all your edits. Your removal of all references from the article can not be described as anything else but simple vandalism. Just the fact that you can not verify the references doesn't mean that no one can, for example I can verify them with ease. And how can you judge a reference inadequate if you don't even know the language it is written in? Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also removed deemed inadequate or irrelevant English language references, In the end not "all" references were removed. The non-English references I removed just because they were not verifyable for the average reader. That you can read them does not make them relevant. --VanBurenen (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article represents now the translation from Serbian article  and there are more than 40 independent sources confirming that he is the inventor, researcher, author; very famous one, with  many awards, applied inventions (not just pseudoscience) so we don't talk here just about that issue. As I can see after many editing we got very good and short article and it deserves to be kept as the translation from Serbian Wikipedia. Руно (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)  — Руно (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You claim the English version to be a translation from the Serbian. However, the English language version appears to be the oldest. All the others seem to have been created in the last few months in which effort you yourself play a large part. I suggest that the Serbian article was a translation of the English version. The way editors on the Serbian wikipedia judge articles may be different than here, and they may be more inclined to keep an article when it concerns a local "hero". You claim he is "very famous". Apparently amongst some friends. I suggest that that fact is exaggerated. You claim he has many awards. Many people get a certificate of attendance after finishing a course. Some collect these for fun. Just claiming that he has awards without knowing the relevance of these awards is rather pointless. You claim he has other inventions. Apparently for a toilet seat, another non-proven item. Thousands of people have patented inventions. That does not make them relevant. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is said it presents now the translation since the both articles are almost identical and every claim in Serbian version is covered with the one or more third-party source. So if something was wrong there it would be problematic and would go through discussion, but the list of independent sources were valid and confirmed all the claims in the article. Other your objections are irrelevant. The inventor is famous and notable outside "his town" (I mean outside his continent). Ternit (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No claim of notability, nor independent sources to demonstrate notability. If the previous AFD is any indication, we're about to be inundated with a horde of Serbian irredentist perpetual motion advocates. Skinwalker (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Serbian article meets all criteria with a list of independent sources confirming all quotes than why we are discussing if he is the notable inventor, author or not? Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Things stated in above are simply wrong. This guy did receive notice "outside of his own little parochial community" and passes criteria of WP:BIO. The independent sources used in his article are fully valid. Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article sourced almost exclusively to http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/, therefore a serious lack of independent reliable sources that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Milkovic is an Serbian inventor it is logic that Serbian article should be the main one and the most relevant for looking for the independent sources; I can read Serbian text and I see that every sentance is covered with very strong reference. There are 9 leading Serbian newspapers with the articles about him and his inventions in the reference list that were published since 1999 - 2008 (the last one October 20  - there were 6 newspaper articles just in the last 3 months, one on the front page of the one of leading newspapers Vecernje Novosti, Politika the oldest daily in the Balkans , Blic with the highest circulation daily in Serbia  and others , ) etc. Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I was editing this article and trying to add relevant third-party sources and independent references since the first discussion started. I found that the books of Veljko Milkovic are listed in the Library of Congress Catalog    so it is not true he is not the author. Since the Library of Congress is not taking every printed book in the world we can see the significance here since they have Milkovic's books in their catalog. There is no better reference than the Library of Congress since the Library of Congress is the most credible institution in the world. Also I have just found and added the new independent sources to the article; a book written by an American where Veljko Milkovic is mentioned and where one of his inventions is described  and the movie about Milkovic as an inventor . So it is absolutely not true there are no independent sources. Ternit (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)  — Ternit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please stop canvassing. It's not very difficult to translate your messages to other editors.  Skinwalker (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you understood but I have a discussion with the other editors related to the arguments on Serbian wikipedia and there are no aggresive canvassing as you stated. I am exposing the references and arguments needed for this debate and we should concentrate on that subject. Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: if the Serbian-article sources are going to be used to establish notability in this article, then I think we first need the following:
 * Translations, per WP:V, to allow us to see what information they verify, and whether this constitutes "significant coverage" (per WP:NOTE)
 * Some details of the reliability of these sources, as (i) Milković appears to be notable in a fairly WP:FRINGE area and (ii) most editors on the English wikipedia will not be familiar with which Serbian sources are reliable,and which aren't.
 * Lacking this, all we've got to go on are the English sources cited in the article -- which really do not substantiate any notability. HrafnTalkStalk 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are mostly Serbian newspapers. Wikipedia usually has articles about these newspapers, that you could peruse, and you could also see the previous AfD where some of what you ask for is detailed. You can use Google Translate to translate the articles, and if something remains unclear, I'd gladly translate it. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: While taking a more detailed look at the material Nikola attempted to reintroduce into the article (mostly WP:SELFPUB), I found this gem: this source (Google translation here) states that Milković is famous because Wikipedia says so. Well, if it's in Wikipedia, it must be true, mustn't it? ;D HrafnTalkStalk 05:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's hilarious, and well worth reading. It also documents the harm we cause by keeping articles about advocates of fringe or debunked science in the encyclopedia absent significant mention in reliable third party sources.  Phil153 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia was something new back then, but read it a bit more carefully - they do not say that he is famous just because he is in Wikipedia. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't tell us what the translation says?? It would be fair when you would tell what this article is about not just to choose few sentances and make the conclusion. Just 2 of 10 paragraph of this article is about Wikipedia (I cannot read anywhere it says he is famouse because of Wikipedia, so please don't state such assumptions) and 8 others are about his eco-house, his inventions, patents, history of his research, expolartion of Petrovaradin fortress, books, award etc. Newspaper daily Dnevnik is not self-published source. Ternit (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The complete lack of reliable sources means we can't say anything about him that's verifiable, and he doesn't fit any notability guidelines that I can see. In addition, there are clearly a number of perpetual motion advocates on Wikipedia pushing for his inclusion (who are even willing to canvass), yet they have been unable to to reliably source anything in the article in the 1.5 years since the same single purpose accounts last voted "keep". Right now there is no indication that a reliable article can ever be written on the subject from third party sources.  The page can always be created again in the unlikely event that reliable sources surface.   Phil153 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not repeat falsehoods. Reliable third-party sources do exist and are used in the article. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of "repeating falsehoods". Before I voted I looked at every single reference on that page and the ones in the previous AfD, including the ones that have been added recently.  The only reliable source that mentions him is in relation to a minor award.  There is nothing from reliable sources that can be used to build even a short article about this person (to say nothing of his notability).  Phil153 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And as an example of what we're dealing with here, here is one of the references currently listed on the page in relation to his awards: http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/SertifikatiEng.html Phil153 (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unawareness of how the things on Wikipedia work should not be mistaken for encyclopedic irrelevance. That gem proves only the first. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that was meant to be a reply in my section or the one above, but if it applies to my link, that page was used as the reference [5] for his "numerous awards". His own site is hardly a reliable source. Phil153 (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep An inventor (at least 22 approved patented inventions ), wrote 12 books, and is someone whom you can write a not-so-short article about, referencing almost every sentence from independent and notable sources. I would suggest also having look at the previous vote. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk  ] 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took a look at these 'patents' -- they appear to be more an indictment of the Serbian Patent Office than a recommendation for Milković -- they appear to be mostly, or entirely, pseudoscientific perpetual motion devices (generally adding a pendulum to a simple mechanical device like a pump, etc). HrafnTalkStalk 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't get quite what is pseudoscientific about these devices. Don't they work or finish useful job? I also hope there is no try of implication that simpleness makes an invention less of an invention. But, shall we come that far to question an internationally acknowledged institution, I would rather discredit the one who put the discussion in that direction. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These 'inventions' rely upon perpetual motion, which violates the first law of thermodynamics and are thus "obvious pseudoscience" (as defined in WP:ARB/PS). HrafnTalkStalk 09:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't think his hemorrhoid seat violates the first law. Perhaps it induces regular motion?  :P  Skinwalker (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd that that patent doesn't get mentioned on his patent page. HrafnTalkStalk 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a misplaced argument: By at least one invention (Electric Dynamo With Pendulum and load-stones) I cannot see the goal is achievement of "perpetual motion". That an invention is using pendulum to make something last, doesn't mean it falls to the field of pseudoscience nor that it doesn't work nor even that it is useless. Next question: how many inventions (as products) are made to work eternally? 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one is that "Electric Dynamo With Pendulum and load-stones"? Can you give a link to that, please. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, that somebody uses a pendulum doesn't mean he wants to tackle the topic of perpetuum mobile. Of course the one I mention is here, accessed via this page. The paper is excerpt from a magazine where all (recent) inventions have been listed. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That link does not clarify anything about what you said before. But I noticed that you are already distancing yourself from the article. You asked: "...how many inventions (as products) are made to work eternally...". That is exactly what this Veljko is doing. His claim to fame is making "patented" products that produce more energy than is put in: such products would indeed work eternally, and are examples of perpetual motion. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh but it does explain everything I said, unless you point a part that it doesn't (so please feel that free). And I do believe I couldn't make my point clearer (I mean... I repeated it at least five times here). If you want to dispute something I don't defend, you'd better find somebody else (perhaps the Milković himself and have a duel as two scientists). So yes, the reason why I don't enter that waters is that it would be an original research, a speculation. That's exactly what was done by mentioning air and joints friction. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You want prove that something does not exist. I am not getting into nonsense like that. Calling Milković a scientist is a bit of an exaggertion. Please mention any scientific study he has done, or scientific research he has consulted. By the way, friction in joints and resistance while moving in air is not original research. It is knowledge found in any elementary physics book. I am sorry if you do not read that or have no access to that. --VanBurenen (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow you succeed to draw conclusions that don't have actual connection with anything that was said. :) I particularly don't try to prove anything here, and especially not something that doesn't exist. You are who just make lame statements like that one and provide no real background. Another example was insisting that I said things I didn't. Hereby I will also use the opportunity to answer this one: "you are already distancing yourself from the article". My position now is the same as on the start of the discussion. What you call my distancing may be just your revelation of what was actually said. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the friction thing, you just succeeded to miss the point again. Talking about the invention that possesses magnets, and has a specific construction and taking only two frictions (again, no exact numbers) into consideration is but utterly lame speculation. Why? Well, to provide any valuable analysis of that matter, you'd have to take all elements into consideration. And that can do neither of us. So, basically, I say that anybody who juts mentions cheap theorems (no exact numbers/calculations, no exact bounds to the subject) in situation when we don't have some exact model is just wasting the time and filling up the space with ... well lets skip the name. This page is simply not meant for discussion whether a device actually works (I mean, do that and you do original research) but whether this man is relevant for this project according to the sources that we have. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong - here is the document from the University of Novi Sad, Serbia stating that Milkovic wrote at least 2 scientific papers (studies). Also here is the article from one scientific magazine (university professors are talking about healthy and sick house building) stating that Milkovic participated with his eco-house project on 2 international seminars in Milano, 1995 and Tokio, 1996 . One more document from the Secretariat for Science and Technological Development, Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Serbia with the list of 4 scientific papers Milkovic wrote . Another document from the Secretariat for Science and Technological Development with the list of 3 more papers Milkovic wrote  - you can read the text in English here: Krnjetin S., Nikolić A., Milković V.: An  example of a selfheating eart shelterd house with the 80% reduction of energy comsumption, The 7th International conference on indoor air quality and climate, IAIAS, Nagoya, Japan, 1996. So I have found 9 papers he wrote and this is the strong reference he participated in the scientific researches and wrote the scientific studies (together with the university professors and researchers). Ternit (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At least a couple of these documents (including the one you just attempted to add into the article) are nothing more than CVs of other people (Milković's co-authors?), and hardly constitute RSes. HrafnTalkStalk 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what do you want to say that Milkovic didn't write those scientific studies?? Those documents are listed on the site of the official institution and state administration, so it represents the valid document. I gave the third-party and independent source but it seems you doubt on its validity. Ternit (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacking reliable third-party notice of these papers (which were after all mere conference papers that he was a co-author on, not papers published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal), I see no reason the article should mention them at all. A co-auther's CV is NOT a "third-party and independent source". That this CV is on said co-author's university website is irrelevant -- and most certainly does not make the CV an "official" university document. Your argument is thoroughly tendentious. HrafnTalkStalk 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you missed the point; the question was if he was a scientist or if he has ever written some study or participated in the research projects. The papers above are the documents from the official institution, there cannot be more official than a University archive and state administration office for science and technology. But let's see one more time if it is true what is stated that these scientific papers have ever been issued. Let's check in the offical state library if some of these papers were published in some book or in the collection of the papers; 2. Бјељац, Ж., Кавгић, П., Милковић, В. (1995): Енергетски, пољопривредни и еколошки аспекти коришћења равничарских водних ресурса, У Зборнику радова научног скупа са међународним учешћем Eкo конференција-заштита животне средине градова и приградских насељa, Еколошки покрет града Новог Сада свеска 2 (стр.121-124). Нови Сад. - type Ekoloski pokret in Publisher, 7. Milković V., Halaši T., Halaši R. Crevar M., MOTIVACIJA U EKOLOŠKOM OBRAZOVANJU I U DRUGIM PREDMETIMA PRIRODNIH NAUKA POMOĆU PRONALAZAKA, EKO-KONFERENCIJA’03, (24-27. septembar 2003, Novi Sad) Zaštitita životne sredine, gradova i prigradskih naselja, Monografija, II, Ekološki pokret grada Novog Sada, str. 123-128. (R22/1,2=3) M 3 - type Ekoloski pokret in Publisher. Also if you translate one of sentances you can read Krnjetin S., Nikolić A., Milković V.: Analiza mogućnosti izgradnje samogrejnih ekoloških kuća u Novom Sadu i okolini, Jednogodišnji istraživački projekat, Fond za zaštitu životne sredine grada Novog Sada, Uprava za zaštitu životne sredine, Novi Sad, 1998. str. 41 - it says one year long research project about possibilities of building eco-houses. Ternit (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Patents do not prove or in any other way support the actual working of an invention. They only prevent someone else making and commercially exploring the patented device. --VanBurenen (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable." (Patent) How is an invention that doesn't work "useful"? HrafnTalkStalk 09:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I start a pendulum of an invention by a simple push, and I can listen radio for next XX hours. It sounds useful to me. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 10:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are giving incomplete/incorrect information: any pendulum has only a limited time that is will oscillate. Friction in joints and air-resistance will do that. After a while it needs to be "activated" again by a push. That you can "listen to a radio" for hours without repeatedly activating this pendulum is utter nonsense. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's at least a misunderstanding: Actually I did mention it will work for a limited time, and I do consider it useful yet. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are talking utter nonsense. First you claim to be able to listen for hours, now it is a limited time. I say that you are stretching the truth. And that you find is useful is utter POV and irrelevant. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just totally worng: my first statement was "XX hours" (not just "hours") which is equal to "limited time". 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. The xx is so that you can fill in any value that is convenient, depending on the direction of the discussion. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when are completely non notable patents evidence of notability? Even in the US, which likely has much stricter patents laws than Serbia (they won't patent claimed perpetual motion machines, for example), anybody can get a patent for all kinds of improbable or crackpot devices.  I don't see how authorship of completely non notable books qualifies for notability either.  If you could link a policy it would help, because my reading of WP:Notability supports neither point. Phil153 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the focus should be put on perpetual motion, but on the actual achievements. His work did achieve some awards on the fields of ecology and energetic. To this shall be also added the achievement in exploration of Petrovaradin Fortress. How many inventors can offer an equal portfolio? 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 12:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then surely we can find some reliable sources which document this? The only independently sourced mention of any award is in his local paper for a rather non notable award he received from his local town.  Surely there must be press reports if any of his other awards were notable?  At present the claims of many awards in the article sourced to http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/SertifikatiEng.html, all of which looking pretty dodgy to me. I'm all for keeping the article if someone can give reliable sources for his notability, but none have made it into the article in 1.5 years since the last nomination.  Phil153 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Up to now all comment and references in support of this person were about all the patents he had on his pendulum. Now Mihajlo want the focus to shift to what he calls "awards" but appear to be no more than locally distributed certificates of appreciation. And he mapped fortress. I can assure you, there are many thousands of people that have achieved more than that. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, these ones are just everything but a straight response to my comment. Hence, no answer (let the judges read). Still, please do concentrate on the exact arguments and not on my name or weasel words like I can assure you, there are many thousands. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 13:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But those "weasel words" were an answer to your "weasel question". I thought that was clear. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * keep Probable bad faith nom - nominator appears to be on a WP:POINT making deleion campaign of some kind. Artw (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shooting the messenger is the easy way out of judging an article on its merits. Doubt about this article was already expressed earlier here Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Possible  We will see if we will get further misunderstandings for which I don't believe they have root in my English language. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 11:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I tend to second bad faith. Above we already see false quotations and giving weasel words (and wanting exact facts in exchange) in form of cloudy statements. 本  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 13:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Numerous above arguments, as well as the two year gap with no significant improvements, suggest there isn't enough reliable material to constitute reliable sources for his notability. The fact that a serbian coterie has assembled to protect the article is further proof of non-notability; if he were truly notable, any one editor of any nationality could provide counterarguments, instead of needing to rely on vote-stacking. ThuranX (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If any one editor of any nationality could provide counterarguments I suggest and invite all first to read all references mentioned here - you can use translation tools to translate the content of references. Just repeating he is not notable and that there are no independent sources (while the references are exposed during this discussion) will not give us anything. Ternit (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of the reliably published third-party sources about Milković that would allow him to pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (and Comment): Actually, no comment to posts arguing about verifications...
 * --Descartes777 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC) — Descartes777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - no third party sources to establish notability. Shot info (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Please read first the list of translated third-party sources at the beginning of the discussion. Ternit (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (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.