Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Path Magnetic Technology

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel Path Magnetic Technology

Seems promotional. Most of 109 Google hits come back to ad pages or mirrors of ad pages. Daniel Case 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Either delete or extensively modify to make it clear that this is pseudoscience - just another perpetual motion machine. Currently the article doesn't mention this at all, let alone make it clear. Graham 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Graham. Bobby1011 07:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional content has been added, please review.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.63.32.67 (talk • contribs).

• Delete promotional, not sound science. --Wtshymanski 23:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Promotional material, crap physics. I added some debunking in the interim, but it should be deleted.

• Delete zowie 00:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Twingy 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a perpetual motion machine as some claim from results. Check additional section for explanation. I believe the current content (physics) can be agreed upon by all individuals now.

• Delete. And don't invest any money in it. Meggar 07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn pseudoscience. --Malthusian (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In this entries current form, all of the information is correct. While previous versions of this article were incorrect, and thus caused a number of people to help correct this entry, as it currently stands this entry is now informationaly accurate in terms of describing what PPMT can provide over traditional electromagnetic motors. Due to the vast transformation of this entry I recommend this entry be reconsidered for not being deleted.

• delete, delete, delete! No, it is still a black hole of suckage and pseudoscientific claims, sorry. I say axe it. zowie 06:41, 26 February 2006 (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.