Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/New Energy Movement

Here we go......

Soapboxing???
Give me a little time to gather up my citations...I think it is very useful to have this article online before I have all the citations plugged throughout. There s absolutely nothing original about this idea. As for controversy, I do not believe that this article contains much of anything controversial. Please be specific if you really mean that. Most of what I said is pretty much common knowledge except that the so-called "movement" itself still takes a lot of heat from the naysayers. Many of the naysayers are still operating from a place of diminished knowledge.

Soap-boxing...come on. If the tone of the article comes across as overly passionate or preachy, then I will certainly try to tone it down as much as necessary to satisfy the worst critics. But really. Please show me where this article is soap-boxing?

Is there anything else? Did I miss anything from your last attempt to delete the article? Please let me know so that I can make this a worthy addition to Wikipedia. I've had people tell me that they learned something useful and factual from the article. I guess I still have a ways to go before I completely get it right. Thanks for your help and please continue helping me to get it right.

PEACE! John W. Cornett (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Science???
What? Please show me the "fringe science" that you suggest. In this particular case, just because you call it fringe science does NOT make it so. While I agree that there "may" be information in the article which "might" have a startling affect on a few readers, and even smell a little like "controversial subject matter," the fact is the article informs the reader of facts. The article is intended to enlighten people and compel the discerning reader a reason to dig further on the current level of advancement in certain sciences, ie, the real potential of new energy sources that will revolutionize the way we think about energy. So how exactly is that fringe science and how is that offensive? I maintain that, though severely lacking in references, which will be added in time, the article is worthy of staying on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musician1955 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP The article has been re-written to be more in tune facts and only needs the necessary reliable references and links that I hope will elevate the topic to less than controversial. Thanks!John W. Cornett (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regards, and PEACE! John
 * I'm not sure what the consensus might consider a substantive topic, but I consider a topic that defines the existence and growth of an extremely important mindset as substantive. The so called new energy movement has reached a critical mass and is substantive, if only by the exponential growth and attention given to this movement in past decades. As I write this, I'm trying to decide which links and references accentuate the true spirit and substantive quality of the article. I need help from the public too. That is why I am sort of pushing the topic back through each time it gets flagged by you. Andy, this is NOT fringe science. Please do your homework, when you get a chance. Conventional thinking (science) is ready for the wake up call and this article is my attempt to bring a grossly overdue concept to the forefront of discussion. I am asking for your help, and the help of others, to bring this very real concept to light. We are living in an extremely important time in human evolution of this planet where certain choices must be made in what direction we will take to expand the reality of our very existence. Please take a little time, if you will, to educate yourself and help to get this article right and falling within the constraints of this important neural network that we are developing or, in my case, contributing to. I intend to get this right, hence, my less than dignified attempt to be civil. I believe you do to. I do not want, nor expect to, continually engage in conflict over who is right or wrong about the efficacy of including this article on Wikipedia. My bet is that you are right in spirit about everything you've laid out in this discussion. Please help me to get this article right. I'd prefer that the titled concept "new energy movement" not become "hijacked" then distorted like so many other great ideas. My self-imposed task is to preserve and propagate the substantive reality of the "new energy movement" as a very real and lasting topic that is historical in nature and will endure well into our future. I am asking for your help. This article, though seemingly premature in the perfection of its content, is very timely and deserves immediate recognition, view and search ability within Wikipedia. My degree is in Electronic Engineering and I've enjoyed various careers over my 53 years in technology and music. Needless to say, but I've taken my share of hits for performing stupid human tricks. Please help me to get this article right and preserve the title New Energy Movement. Perhaps we can both agree that there are ideas that "appear" to represent a departure from conventional thinking or wisdom and rarely come mainstream consciousness easily due to dynamic and opposing forces in a free society. However, what the new energy movement says quite effectively is that "this" issue is real and vital by it's very nature. Just because the combination of words "new" "energy" and "movement" singularly are fairly simple does not relegate their combined force to a dark corner of meaningless bunk. There exists countless sources to justify the efforts to bring this concept to light. In my opinion, you have the privileged of engaging one of many who is actively involved in an idea that is way past due for receiving the acknowledgment that it deserves in this world. Yes, this issue is substantive, and I am asking for your help to get it rght in Wikipedia. I am also asking that you take a little chunk of time from your busy day to investigate the reality of this so-called new energy movement. Please forgive the long message..

PS: If you have a chance and prefer to see a youtube overview of what it is, I have one here for you: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musician1955 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)