Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steorn

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 Keep, per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steorn

Fails notability threshold for companies in every imaginable way. GBP 85,200 may buy a full page ad in the Economist, but a Wikipedia article is not included with that. --Pjacobi 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless better information is dug up and cited for this article, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the garden-variety "we've done the impossible, but we aren't going to tell you how just yet" claims of scam artists. I see two possibilities for the article's continued presence: (A) it is so widely reported (by gullible news agencies more interested in ratings than verifiable truth) that it should be included as a well-known swindle; (B) the company has actually done something that forces a change in the laws of physics, which would require "extraordinary proof", which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Either way, reliable sources are needed for us to write about it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now. I still have misgivings about this being a manufactured news event, and the claims that there is "massive" news coverage are not yet borne out by either Google's search engine or the links provided in the article. (Where is AP? Reuters? BBC? Other internationally known news agencies? This is, after all, a potentially world-changing event. Perhaps organizations with reputations to protect are actually investigating, rather than parroting unsubstantiated press releases.) But I concede that there will likely be enough material eventually, given the "buzz". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reuters, Guardian and Scientific American --Orangehues 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Orangehues. None of these articles offer any new substance yet, just the brief challenge, the appropriate skepticism of age-old unproven claims, and Steorn testimonials. But it does make the case for notability, whatever the truth behind the noise. I guess we'll have to wait for a proper investigation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I have a fairly simple criterion that's relevant here: if I came to Wikipedia specifically looking for this article, it should be kept. While they probably haven't really rewritten the laws of physics, they are getting a lot of news coverage. ^L_Wizard @ 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I came here specifically looking for the article. -Zapptastic (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Steorn is a technology risk management firm that has been around for several years and although this wiki article is currently biased to their recent developments and announcements, there is a significant amount of information relavent to the company which could be written here as well. The Internet Archive has pages as far back as 2001, long before they developed their "free energy" device. I vote that we keep the page and add more information to it. Jared81 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at least for now, due to massive media coverage. If it turns out to be nothing special and nobody remembers the whole thing in a year's time, we can always re-evaluate then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I came here looking for information on this company as well. However, I suggest that, eventually, this could be merged into History of perpetual motion machines. Nightwatch／respond 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean way up. If it's a scam, it's going to scam people whether or not wikipedia has an article on it, and wikipedia can at least help to clarify the nature of the scam. People on web forums are linking to the wikipedia page about this thing already. I do think the article *needs* some kind of section for concerns that this company possibly doesn't even exist (and, say, a marketing company just bought up a defunct Irish company's website and put some nonsense about perpetual motion on it that will later turn out to be promotion for some video game or something). Awk 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Paul Studier 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has been a big news story for the last few days and this story will not go away any time soon. A whole lot of people have been looking for information on this company and isn't this what wikipedia is for ? Niall123 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK; everybody seems to expect by now, that Wikipedia has something about everything in the news, but please remember that the project was started to write an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 21:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course we all use Wikipedia to find information, but it's to find valid information, not rumors, unsubstantiated claims, and marketing events. That said, I'm trying to tighten up the sourcing so we can get to the facts of this subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

However i would rather see an article on wikipedia with a NPOV tag or an article aoutlining the controversy than no article at all. Smartaalec 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's NOT a perpetual motion machine as mentioned in the article. It is in fact a Zero point energy machine. Please see Steorn's video which clearly demonstrates that this has something to do with magnetic induction. There are other inaccuracies in the article. For, e.g., their background is mainly in technology consulting, not dotcoms. I'm new to wikipedia so I suggest someone please make the corrections. See Steorn's patent description and an independent company verifying their claims, although admittedly that's not a very reliable source.--Orangehues 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "independent company" cited in the above link (which is an alternative-energy wiki, not a reliable publication) is apparently Magnetic Power Inc., which "claims to be close enough to have some demonstration modules, which extracts energy from the vacuum of space, ready for market by end of 2006". In other words, this is like John Edward testing Uri Geller. I'm frightened by the number of people who will believe anything they read on the Internet. That's why we require reliable sources, folks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They may not have changed the laws of physics; maybe they're just siphoning off some previously unknown energy source. I'm not a physicist, I don't know. However, if they are a legit company and have a legit claim we ought to keep a record of it for history's sake. If they are a scam, we could have a spectacular record of that too. Spahi 22:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep My name's Cathal, I think that this article should be kept on Wikipedia. If the whole idea is a hoax(which I think is hard to believe, from what I've seen) having it or not having it on Wikipedia won't change that. Just as many encyclopedias have detailed articles on ideas and things which later turned out to be false (flat-earth, the geocentric Solar System et al.) so too must Wikipedia, another encyclopedia report on this (potential) falsitude.
• Keep Steorn very much deserves an article, if not only for the fact that it can link to Perpetual Motion and similar articles. It would also be a good place to have the results of their testing, etc.

(With the rather one-sidedness of this discussion, should the deletion box be removed?) ~ Nick.sideras 23:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I see no reason to delete it, as they are a company that is making news, and thus deserve a Wiki entry.OkamiItto 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think they pass the threshold of newsworthiness. Tt 225 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's been publicized in various places, and there is a lot of public interest about the concept. Because of this, there should be a wikipedia page to keep up with any new information about this technology, despite the fact that it seems impossible.--Sam Ellens 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This article should most definately be kept - it has gained major attention in the news, and in my opinion the fact it may be a hoax is irrelevant - using that logic should we delete all the articles on List of hoaxes as well? As far as I'm concerened its a shame we have to have the deletion message up there for the next 4 days when the concensus seems pretty clear... Smartaalec 01:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are news articles on this company on the front page of Google News in the Technology section. REGARDLESS of whether their claims are bunk (and I'm not saying that they are), Wikipedia needs an article to address the controversy. C'mon, it's ON THE FRONT PAGE OF GOOGLE NEWS. Styrbjorn 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ditto, it's ON THE FRONT PAGE OF GOOGLE NEWS. Anal admins, take note.
• Keep Life on earth is about to change or these crazy Irishmen are about to make utter fools of themselves, either way this is notable without a doubt. Dev1n 05:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a documented company claiming to have created Free Energy. Properly a publicity stunt but they have managed to be on a load of major news outlets so I think we should document the company for the time being. I agree not to make it an advert though. --Dark archeus 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:LizardWizard, User:Nightwatch, and last but not least User:71.138.137.6. Quit VfDing everything without a good reason. --Neurophyre 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The strong likelihood is that this "technology" will go the way of all perpetual motion machines thus far, into the dustbin of history; but if anything the manner in which they have laid down their challenge is certainly notable and extraordinary; to advertise in a well-respected magazine like The Economist is probably a first, and may well be embarassing if/when it all turns out to be moonshine; but it does no harm to keep a record of these people on Wikipedia. It will be another punctuation mark in the long and dishonourable history of so-called "over-unity" machines. User:Jaganath 09:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: as per Devln, above. -- The Anome 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (for now) but maybe trim it down and keep it to the bare facts. And if it proves to be a hoax/false claim/swindle/marketing strategy then delete it or merge it with another article, as appropriate. Sony-youth 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Either a notable scam or a notable invention with notable news coverage and notable marketing. 16:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)User:Tumbleman
• Keep LCpl 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Worthwhile article which can and will evolve as the story develops. Many companies have articles so do not see why not this one as well.Kiale 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is either a major scientific breakthrough or a notable act of kamikaze P.R. which should be a permanent part of the story of free-energy research and claims. The bold, public "challenge" advertisement Steorn has placed in The Economist gives this story political significance, as many people suspect that successful free-energy devices which may have been invented in the past have been suppressed by industry or government interests. Steorn's strategy may be an attempt to circumvent this kind of suppression. RockPoet 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It appears that the company's claims will be tested in the near future (see The Observer). Should the claims be validated, the entry should remain given the obviously extraordinary historical significance of this alleged discovery. Should the claims be refuted (as we all seem to suspect they will be), the degree of attention it has received from both the public and the scientific community will still warrant an entry, though it should be revised to conform to the Wiki's hoax guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.95.182 (talk • contribs)
• Keep: nobody believes this is possible because it claims to create energy, and we know that is impossible. We also "knew" the world was flat, until we were proven wrong, we "knew" the atom was indestructible, until we were proven wrong. I have done some research on this story and believe it is legit, don't delete it until we are positive it is all a hoax. --User:NAM 18:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: And even if it is a hoax, it should be kept.. I came to Wikipedia looking for information on this company, and here it is... -Andrew 20:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful to know where this company fits into the broader history of similar claims, which is where Wikipedia can help the reader. I also came looking for this article in light of coverage in The Economist.--129.67.126.221 22:03, 20 August 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.