Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joeflynn

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 to delete. That said, there is not a consensus to keep the article in its current form, either. I have deleted Joeflynn as a nonsensical title, because the article has been moved to Parallel Path. I have tagged Parallel Path to be merged into Perpetual motion, so the editors there may be able to help provide some context. Joyous 00:09, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joeflynn

article moved to Parallel Path

Original research at best; a hoax at worst. The contributor's only other contribution is PODcore. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This 'hoax,' is presently under study at one of America's top 3 engineering schools, who take it very seriously indeed. It is under license to several top American multinational corporations. The patent office has approved the claims, based upon an experimental demonstration. The only claim made, is that one can move magnetic flux from one side of a core, to the other, based upon pulsing coils. If that is untrue, then all of physics must be wrong, as presently understood. Something I find rather unlikely ...pigs should fly indeed. Furthermore, this technology has found significant international recognition through publication in Nexus magazine, translated into several languages, and internationally distributed, which resulted in several academic enquiries for further information, which were fulfilled. This is not my only contribution, I have edited several other articles, adding significant content in the IT section to existing stub pages, such as nforce, nforce 2, soundstorm, ATI, Nvidia, and others, before I formally registered. The request for deletion is wholly uninformed comment, apparently based upon raw emotion of some sort. This is exciting leading edge commercial technology, that in the years to come will become an important part of magnetic engineering. The text is both conservative, to the point, and non commercial in presentation, as is required. Why should knowledge of this exciting technology be suppressed, when a public domain article has been freely offered? What is so controversial, about the idea you can pulse a coil, and move a magnetic field around a core. I fail to see it.

• Delete First there's the title "Joeflynn" which seems to be the name of the inventor (and I assume the author of the article) and not the invention. If nothing else the article should be renamed. I don't get any hits on Google for a "Joeflynn" other than a person. Second, the links in the article are only lead to a few very obscure web publications. If it is under study at certain engineering schools it might become notable after they announce their findings. --LeeHunter 17:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is talk of a peer reviewed article, I know some drafts have already been drawn up, but it always takes time to submit, review, etc. So what you are saying, is that until this gets in the peer reviewed literature, Wiki can't run it? Seems harsh. You could rename it 'parallelpath.' Thats the technology name. The patent is a form of official recognition. I dispute the fact Nexus magazine is an obsure web publication. It is distributed in paper form, on 4 continents, in several different languages, with sales in tens of thousands, and a much wider overall readership. So I would disagree with the wording 'obscure' and 'web.'

What I'm saying is that it may or may not be a brilliant idea but that's not the issue. Even if it is a great invention it doesn't become notable (i.e. encyclopedic) until it has an impact on the world. For example, people start building and using the invention or it becomes a concept which is widely discussed (at least within engineering circles). When that happens the article could be resubmitted and will be favorably received. --LeeHunter 19:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Original research, delete. --fvw* 18:44, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Hard to tell if this is original research. Marginal keep, though the title of the article seems to be inconsistent with the text. Is it supposed to be "Joeflynn" or "Joe Flynn"? 23skidoo 18:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Perpetual motion or History of perpetual motion machines and delete. The fact that it is patented indicates a slip by the patent examiners, not a real phenomenon. --TenOfAllTrades 00:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 01:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of peer review, orig. res. Wyss 06:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I bow to the experts. Its physically impossible to move flux round a core, by pulsing a coil.

• Weak Keep until I can verify its original research. Megan1967 03:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep Wonderful. Its a valid commercial technology, under license to multinational corporations. Its under academic study at top American universities, and indeed internationally. It has been accepted for publication internationally TWICE already, authored by someone with a genuine postgrad qualification from one of England's top 5 universities. And a formal peer review article is (I'm told) presently under active discussion. Given how many questionable articles go unchallenged in Wiki, I'm amazed there has to be so much grief about this. Timharwoodx 13:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. By itself the article is now a few dry diagrams and a little text. I am afraid that it may grow to include unproven claims. Of the three links, two are pay sites so I didn't read the actual articles. But the article titles that I could see included stuff like Area 51, Urine Therapy, and theoretical miraculous energy systems - all low-verifiability. The official website has page labelled "Prototype Test Data" which says "Contents will be added to this page by 8-1-2001, Please check back with us!" Yeah, sure thing. Once this invention has become proven/practical/otherwise notable we can put an article in. There's no need for a page on every patent looking for financial backing. (For an article on the other side of the razor, barely, see quasiturbine). But hey, good luck to the inventors! I hope it works. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:19, 9 Jan 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.