Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PODcore

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 delete. Joyous 00:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PODcore

I could find no references to this outside Wikipedia mirrors. The contributor's only other contribution is Joeflynn. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made many contributions to the Wiki, most especially in the IT section, including filling out the stubs for nForce, nForce2, ATI, Soundstorm, Nvidia, and others. I was moved to finally register, simply out of the need to upload images for this article. The POD core is a widely replicated flux experiment, that showcases some genuinely interesting physics. An internet discussion group ran based upon it for some time, but without further funding I can not pursue the research, and simply wish it to be made available as common knowledge. The CD motor and POD cores have both been referenced in the internationally distributed Nexus magazine – so once again, the request for deletion makes false and uninformed comment. And finally, this Egroup is a continuation of this innovative research. In sum, I must question the motives and impartiality of Susvolan, and feel there may be a personal agenda of some sort, because he repeatedly makes demonstrataby false comments about my articles. I am happy for these two links to be added to the article, along with a reference for Nexus magazine, if the condition of Wiki entry, is that you must have been published elswhere previously - in this case, this condition has clearly been met.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JMPulseCharger/ http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/otherdevices/Cour/a_new_pulse_battery_charger.htm

• Ohhhh, I recognize this stuff. That's an Adams motor, and you've been experimenting with overunity. If this hangs around, it really needs some NPOV work to bring it in line with perpetual motion and Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy. iMeowbot~Mw 16:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine. If it needs some sort of edit to bring it 'in line,' then do it. But you can not say it does not work, as JM has taken the technology to a viable commercial product, as now referenced at the bottom of the page, in an edit I made 5 minutes ago, whose performance exceeds that of many conventional charge controllers. It has also been previously published in other forums, on the internet, and in hard copy. If it requires some form of 'perpetual motion tag,' as you see it, then just add it. But if SMOT can be kept in Wiki as a valid entry, I fail to see why a viable commercial grade technology should be deleted. And, may I point out, the article does *NOT* directly claim perpetual motion. It is a valid piece of research, widely replicated in JM's Egroup, and one I ran before that. Why not join the Egroup, and decide for yourself?

• Delete unless contributor provides a citation to an article about this in a peer-reviewed print journal, and the existence of the article can be verified before expiration of VfD comment period. The contributor says "without further funding I can not pursue the research, and simply wish it to be made available as common knowledge." Absent a print journal reference, that makes it deletable as "original research." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. "NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups." That's not even claiming to be a journal. iMeowbot~Mw 17:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its a write up of how a commercial patented technology was derived, one widely replicated, that shows a higher efficiency than existing technology. You take a comment not made in the article, to judge it. I was unaware the Wiki was not allowed to document the development of viable real world commercial technology, and I don't know the rules as well as you guys. I find it bizarre, that the SMOT toy is allowed to stand, yet this comes in for a hard time. May I kindly request, the SMOT article be deleted, as that has no peer reviewed scientific reference of which I am aware, either, and is most definitely "original research". I simply think you have a responsibility to apply editorial standards equally to all articles. Thats all. If you do that, then there can be no complaint. If editorial policy is variable - well, it just looks bad. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy

I insist that page is deleted as well. It is "original research" with no peer review of any form.

You don't need to "insist." Help make our editorial policy more consistent. If you think Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy should be deleted, nominate it for VfD. Follow the directions at the bottom of the page here. Don't complain that it hasn't been nominated yet: nominate it. That will force a review. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait and see. I based my submission upon what was already in the Wiki. If my page gets deleted, I will look for any other non peer reviewed "original research" pages, and ask they be deleted as well. If I see some technology, with no peer review reference at the bottom, I'll nominate it. This could create quite a long list of deletions, and a large loss of content potentially, but rules are rules, I guess. The important thing is that the Wiki is consistent in what it allows. As long as that is the case, there can be no complaint. But clearly, a long list of other misguided content exists, but for some reason, someone decided to pick on mine, and ignore a lot of the other stuff like SMOT. Even I think SMOT is junk.

You should have based your submission on Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, rather than on "what was already in the Wiki." Saying that your article should be kept because in your opinion there are already worse articles in Wikipedia is like complaining to a cop that you shouldn't be ticketed for going 75 mph because there were other drivers going faster. Is he going to slap his forehead with the heel of his palm and say "Duh! I never thought of that. I'm tearing up the ticket. Have a nice day?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Original research, delete. --fvw* 18:46, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_motor

Marked for deletion - it ALSO covers the Adams motor / original research, and lacks peer review. For some reason, no-one ever had any problem with that entry.

• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Perpetual motion or History of perpetual motion machines and delete. Either that, or a substantial rewrite that at least mentions thermodynamics.... --TenOfAllTrades 00:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tuf-Kat 00:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mikkalai 01:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, uhm, original research with zero evidence of peer review, to put it kindly. Wyss 05:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Willmcw 07:24, 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.