Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams motor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Article defaults to keep, but there is a strong suggestion that merging with an article on perpetual motion would be appropriate. Joyous 00:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adams motor (3 keep/7 delete/5 merge)

Non peer reviewed, original research, no evidence to back up claims of perpetual motion. No evidence technology has been developed, or marketed. Merge into Perpetual motion Timharwoodx 19:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll agree it's not good science, but it is pretty well known. Weak Keep. --fvw* 00:07, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
    • How about a Merge into Perpetual motion? --TenOfAllTrades 01:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's probably more sensible, Merge and redirect. --fvw* 03:02, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Comment (no vote yet) Google search on "Adams motor" "free energy" returns 474 hits, which appear to be mostly relevant. There's not very much in the article except for the spiffy animated GIF, which seems to have been taken from The Adams Motor Page without attribution and thus is likely a copyvio. A mention in Perpetual motion seems reasonable. The real question in my mind is whether this is a notable perpetual motion machine or not. (Parenthetically, I don't understand how anyone can be impressed by a perpetual motion machine whose diagram shows a battery in the circuit! If the thing works, why can't it just use, say, a charged capacitor to get it started, and maintain the charge thereafter with the "free energy" it extracts from, whereever it extracts it...) Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful out of the article to Perpetual motion, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • weak merge into perpetual motion. That article neds a lot of work, and this would be a good example of what current adherents are attempting. iMeowbot~Mw 11:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 01:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable article about an invention that has a UK patent. As an article it stands up by itself, no need to merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this scamcruft (lots of useless perpetual motion fraud machines have patents, by the way). Wyss 05:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course it's useless. That's the whole point! But having a UK patent makes it notifiable by my standards. YMMV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's ask Rambot to copy the contents of the USPTO database into Wikipedia. Six million new articles, badda-bing, badda-boom. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • How many of those are for perpetual motion machines? I'll admit to a certain bias towards screwy impossible claims made for tangible inventions, but I think that claim is what makes these things so good to read about. There are just 109 bullet points in History of perpetual motion machines, so it doesn't seem to be the inexhaustible field some have tried to make it out to be. And not that many of them will be worth an article; I think this one is because it's contemporary and is still used as a basis for experiments by Free Energy nuts today. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's my point. A patent is not inherently notable. Wyss 00:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps merits a one-sentence mention in Perpetual motion and/or external link from that article, no more. Just checked with a friend of mind who, though no expert, is more interested in things like Dean drives and Keeley motors than I am, and he's never heard of it. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking anything really well known. No evidence presented that this battery-powered perpetual motion machine is a particularly noteworthy example of the genre. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Actually, I just checked, and its already listed in History_of_perpetual_motion_machines for the year 1977. So I would say this is a duplicate entry. Change my vote from merge to delete. If you had a full article for every claim of perpetual motion, there would be no end in sight. Timharwoodx 13:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It wouldn't go forever, or perpetually, since even magnets slowly lose their force, correct? And the battery, plus the friction.....Eh, merge and redirect per above. hfool/Roast me 01:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, no notability established. Andris 21:26, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.