Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe cell

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.  Sandstein  20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe cell

Joe cell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This appears to be nutso-tech. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CB. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Oh God, I can feel the will to live draining away as I contemplate this crap. OK. OK. I know that is not a valid reason to delete it. How about it a complete lack of any explanation of what it actually is, how it is meant to work or any reliable source references to enable us to verify any of this stuff. I mean, I could make up some vague, meaningless crap about stuff, decline to identify myself saying that the men in white coats are after me and then post links to crazy sites, but I wouldn't expect an entry in a serious encyclopaedia or to win the Nobel prize for physics for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As drivel. No proper references except to publicly-editable wikis with "hoax" articles. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Googling the book refs shows that they appear to be existing books (though possibly self published). G-hits turn up quite a bit, too. It looks to be a hoax device, but it might actually be attracting enough attention to pass WP:N. Simply put, the wide array of hits that google turns up (not the number, but the types of sites) makes it look like there is serious discussion about this thing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - There are plenty of high profile energy hoaxes out there. My concern is when the article presents it as uncontested fact when there appears to be no third party support. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense; if it did turn out to be notable, it would definitely need NPOVed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless there is some evidence that at least those people who care about such things know about this. Books of this sort are presumed to be self-advertisements. Inventors such as out 'Australian inventor “Joe” who wishes to remain anonymous due to apparent harassment from armed men...' " makes a prima fascia case for something made up for the ignorant and credulous. DGG (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't make the grade, as per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I think nom put it best. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Send it back into the aether. Probable hoax with no sources to speak of. Nor is there any assertion of notability; articles with YouTube videos as sources make a little red light start blinking in my brain! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:36, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
  • Those blinking red lights in your brain are the Orgone energy! Klausness (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and Delete, since there's no evidence that this is a notable energy hoax. Klausness (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "The evolution of the Joe cell resides in the present tense." The evolution of this article should reside in the past tense. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable drivel with no reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, non-notable pseudoscience. Edward321 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2008 (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.