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.
Strong Keep Don't really care if it is ground breaking or not, however I am very fasinated by how claims like this are treated when they have yet to be proven (either way). I will be very interested to see how the story unfolds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.228.73.13 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep I came to Wikipedia to find the relevant information on this subject in one well referenced place. I doubt the machine works, but I'm looking forward to this article eventually containing the disproving fact, then linking to related topics. Until then, I want this page here keeping the story and references in one place. If it was worth searching for, shouldn't it be here? raulcleary (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an interesting device which does not claim to be perpetual motion. It might have new developments and why exclude it from Wikipedia just because it might be a hoax. It certainly is notable because of its sorta passing scrutiny by MIT. I came here to look for information about it, and why shouldn't I get it? CarVac (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Until MIT says otherwise, information on this device should not be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.5.4 (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The device and the inventor's claims, or lack of, are of note. The construction materials and methods, and the techniques involved in its making are still under scrutiny by the scientific community; no judgement has yet been passed. Deletion at this point would be premature. 17:37, 8 February 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.30.101 (talk)
Keep New to this process, but hopefully my vote counts. Why is this up for deletion? I created it because I did not understand what the Perepiteia machine was and hoped to 1) Learn more and 2) Help others by sharing what little I knew. I figure this machine is a bunch of bunk like 100% of all such machines, but I wanted to know the trick. Sort of like those silly foil anti-grav triangles that really use current to create airflow lift. I realize it's a crazy idea that is 99.999999999999999% likely to be a stupid hoax but how can I learn from others tricks and mistakes if they aren't documented? Where else but wikipedia would I learn this? I created the article today and already it's got all kinds of followup stuff on it for me to learn when I checked back. Seems like wikipedia is doing it's job. I'm kind of disappointed that someone knee-jerked this for deletion. As far as being non-notable, it does seem to be 1) a new trick 2) accelerate instead of maintain motion and 3) have quite a few links. Bottom line is if you do remove this, at least put the knowledge of its existence and method of operation somewhere else that will show up under a search for "Perepiteia". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwiggs (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Nwiggs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete How could a perpetual motion machine be non-notable, I hear you cry? but see WP:REDFLAG. JohnCD(talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:REDFLAG means. WP:REDFLAG is talking about exaggerated claims made by Wikipedia editors in Wikipedia articles without proper sourcing. This article is simply documenting this inventor's (possibly over-exaggerated) claims, not actually making those claims. It's the difference between writing an article claiming that the world is flat and writing an article about the Flat Earth Society.--Aervanath (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The device was featured in a recent news article, and there is still no confirmation or condemnation from the scientific community. The source listed implies that more information should soon be available, and a google search for the device name reveals a lot of internet activity. Many comments from various bulletin boards have lamented the previous lack of a wikipedia article to organize information in a central location. If possible, someone well versed in wikipedia standards should clean up this article, rather than delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyenumber4 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Reddyenumber4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Delete Obxiously a hoax or scam. Edward321 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this perpetual motion machine, if that is what it is, already has more scientific credibility than Steorn, which has had absolutely no public validation at all from any scientist yet continues to occupy a lengthy wikipedia article. in what way is steorn any more or less notable than this fellow?Jaganath (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepHere's an additional reference from PhysOrg where MIT professor Markus Zahn is quoted as saying "It's an unusual phenomena I wouldn't have predicted in advance but I saw it. It's real." Neither Markus or the inventor are saying it's a perpetual motion machine in that particular article. In another article, the Toronto Star says "There's no talk of perpetual motion". I think it's an interesting machine. I'm quite sure it won't turn out to be a perpetual motion machine but I do think it's notable, as do reputable sources. The news articles give the impression that the inventor isn't trying to hoax or scam, but genuinely and openly looking for an explanation of why/how it's working Numsor (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Numsor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
For the record, I find the preceding "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" tag to be a disgrace. It's an outrageous attempt to water down an opinion that I have a clear right to express, as per the policies on this site. My contributions are obvious to anyone that wants to check them, without an insulting tag attached. It's a pretty sad day when Wikipedia has come to this. Numsor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could find no evidence in the history log of the SPA tag being added. I feel that the origin of such tagging should be documented, even if it is automated, as per the precedent of 'SineBot'. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Regardless of whether or not the device is scientifically useful, it is definitely notable. The flurry of news activity indicates notability. Disclosure: I have conducted most of the article's editing. I don't believe the system will be proven to produce any real gains, but, as stated, believe that the topic is noteworthy. TheodoreTest (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — TheodoreTest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ... because Theo has been waiting for an excuse to get into Wikipedia and now has found an interesting topic to start off editing. :P[reply]
Strong Keep All the criticism relates to people rejecting the device as bunk because it's a "perpetual motion machine". Even the inventor avoids that term and say that even if it's not a perpetual motion machine, there could be some useful mechanism at work for enhancing the efficiency of motors, which is not yet understood. There could be a useful invention here. So my point is, it's not just noteworthy because there are news stories about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.1.25 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This invention, regardless of validity, has gained the attention of numerous news venues, scientists, and famous bloggers. Just because you have never heard of it, does not make it non-notable. i read about it first in the news, and then here. It has been shown that this article has numerous cited sources, more than most stubs which pass notability criteria. Also, WP:REDFLAG only applies to presenting ideas which are not verifiable, but does not apply to neutral articles about fringe theories, so long as the theory itself (not the acceptance or rejection of it, but the concept itself) is notable. It even mentions "not covered by mainstream sources" which this subject has been.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept and updated as new information becomes available. --KickTheDonkey (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reason as to why the article should be kept. This is a discussion, not a vote. Corvus cornixtalk 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having updated information on a topic in the news would appear to be his rationale, and the bold keep in front of his statement would be his vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.15.109 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep To paraphrase more politely my talk-page reaction (and with apologies to Wikipedians for the abrasiveness of my opinions), I wish to be able to use the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If I search for background information on a 'Perepiteia' device that I've encountered in a mainstream media venue [1], I expect to find a relatively unbiased entry on the 'Perepiteia' device that does a decent job of conveying established facts and information. This article does not seem to make any counter-factual claims, nor does it have a particularly credulous tone. While I greatly and very genuinely appreciate the many person-years of labour contributed by the (cult)ure of Wikipedians that has grown up around the Wikipedia, maintaining the accuracy, relevance, inter-relatedness and coherence of the corpus; this sort of policing does not directly contribute to the value of the Wikipedia, and should never be allowed, rule or no, to detract from that value. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is notable, it seems to be real. I am sure it won't pan out but that is completely beside the point. Wki reports what 'they say', not the 'truth'.Greg Locock (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Toronto Star articles are by reliable sources. And although we can't rely on wikis such as peswiki, the comments there do put the kibosh on any "notability" this guy should get. See WP:FRINGE. Corvus cornixtalk 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the machine, not "this guy". As such, I don't think his notability is being discussed, rather his machine's notability is. He has said that he isn't progressing a theory, fringe or otherwise so WP:FRINGE, which deals with fringe theories, doesn't seem too relevant. He's simply presenting a machine that, as you say, is noted in articles from at least one reliable source, is being investigated by a (presumably reliable) Professor and debunked (tentatively and with disclaimers that the debunking comes without any physical examination) in a wiki that, as you mentioned, isn't a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.19.45 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Physorg (and peswiki) arguments do put the kibosh on the device's "perpetual motion machine" status. They do not, however, put the kibosh the device's ability to stir up interest and discussion. The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion discovery" is a great example of a parallel wikipedia topic. Modest initial inventor claims are drowned out by massive media focus on the hypothetical, the source phenomenon is eventually explained, and the technology is eventually discredited. The event is notable, even if the invention itself does not stand the test of time. TheodoreTest (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then again, you'll need to provide reliable sources that this device is being discussed at all. Corvus cornixtalk 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you already provided a reliable source yourself? You've pointing out above that the Toronto Star, where the device is discussed, is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.19.45 (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Corvus, what's your problem/obsession with silencing this man? You want proof it's being discussed look here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/02/09/1436257.shtml That ought to satisfy you times a billion. Give up. You've lost the point and lost the vote. This is staying whether you like it or not. The bottom line is PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS. THAT IS WHY IT SHOULD BE KEPT. Your crusade that it's not valid is irrelevant. Your claim that it's not popular is factually wrong. People just want to know more about this thing. Who cares if it is "real" or not. Wikipedia can tell them that upon a surfers initial visit if/when it's determined. BUT ONLY IF THE ARTICLE IS NOT DELETED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwiggs (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) <sarcasm degree=mild self=included> Let's remember the real reason we're all here: to bruise each other's egos and win a big, immensely important fight.</sarcasm>
2) I think that this discussion is veering towards the argumentation of slights, intentional or not, garnered during the consensus gathering process. We should probably try to steer it towards a mutual recognition of disagreement. The preponderance of opinion seems to be that:
(a) the device is probably essentially yet another perpetual motion machine that won't work,
(b) that the impact it has made in the public record is sufficient that an article on the wikipedia is useful, and
(c) that the current article makes a good-faith effort towards neutrality, and does not present pseudo-science as fact.
3) Does this seem to be a fair summary, more or less, to everyone? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good summary to me.--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Depending on the examination of this device by Dr. Zhan, it may become immensely famous or just another piece of junk in a pile of failed perpetual motion machines. If it is the latter, there is no reason we can't revisit the article and delete it for its 10 minutes of fame being over. Until then, however, it is all over the media and it's been Slashdotted. Plenty of reliable sources. --Laser brain (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with the "keep it now, delete it later" approach. Just because something's 10 minutes of fame are over doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep the article on it. If it meets WP:N now, why will it cease to in the future? (see New Coke for comparison)--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The growth of the Perepiteia article is an excellent example of why a quick stub should be left to mature for a little while before somebody swoops in and tries to delete it.--(edited)Wageless (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting article that is relatively informative. And I'm sure that it will be greatly improved in the near future due to Slashdot interest. -Shogun (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This clearly meets WP:N standards. Even if it turns out to be complete bunk, it's still created a buzz in the media, people are talking about it, etc. I'd elaborate, but I'd probably just be repeating what other people said, especially 69.49.44.11's summary above.--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Multiple reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think that it is notable enough, but the article needs expansion with better sources. A lot of the secondary sources given in the article are not reliable (IE: blogs). Rigby27 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given that keeps seriously outnumber deletes here, can someone please remove the deletion tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.15.109 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... it'd be better if nobody went ahead and did that on their own, for a few days. Procedurally (and yes, it's important, as that way we can all rely on precedent) a volunteer admin should first move this page to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perepiteia/Old; then, a few days later, a similar admin should review the page, look for consensus, and remove the tag, as per these guidelines. I recommend giving them until 05:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC), or so, after which time the reader should regard this note of caution (by me) as withdrawn from consideration. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I was hoping my post would be a shout out to someone qualified to do those things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.173 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable to me, lots of reliable sources. --AW (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.