Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veljko Milković

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, nearly an outright keep but ncs defaults there anyways. Daniel Bryant 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veljko Milković

Veljko Milković (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Is it just me, or do all the sources here trace back to the subject himself? Another anti-gravity inventor. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is just you, and while most references in the article are on his website (which should be changed of course), you should have looked at the talk page where you would have seen this: Nikola 05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, he is by far not one of the most famous Serbian inventors, but he is notable enough. I have managed to find following newspaper articles about him:
and there is more. You can see a list of his books if you go here and search for his name as the author. Nikola 08:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as total nonsense, not noticed by anyone , probably because not worth noticing. DGG 05:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Five articles in three nationwide newspapers = not noticed by anyone - how exactly? Nikola 07:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Internationaly non-notable pseudo-scientist , mildly interesting as an example of a peculiar and not always irrelevant Serbian tradition. Stammer 08:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You've found internet links, but I'm not convinced of the reliability of these sites. They don't seem to be reliable scientific research groups. For example, in evaluating one of his inventions, the site says "While our present understanding of physics does not describe nor allow such a scenario, these preliminary findings suggest that harnessing this mechanical amplification effect is indeed possible with the right ingenuity." From the point of view of a reliable source, this doesn't make it for me. If it defies our current understanding of physics, then something might be amiss with the evaluation. — ERcheck (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? When did anyone say that the sites are scientific research groups? OF COURSE that all of this is kookery of the highest order. But this guy is notable, as far as Serbian kooks go. Nikola 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean you implied they were scientific research groups. To clarify — if he is a notable researcher, these site don't validate that. There are lots of "inventors" who make items that no one will ever use. Even if they (inventor groups) are all talking about it among themselves, it doesn't mean the inventor or the invention is notable. — ERcheck (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If this was a group of inventors from Novi Sad patting each other's backs, I could agree with you. But he is noticed by his American colleagues, which should account for something. In addition, he did receive several awards for his inventions (the ones unrelated to "free energy"), one of them by the city of Novi Sad, which I believe would make him marginally notable on its own, and wrote a dozen books on various topics which don't appear to be self-published (as they are published by various publishing houses) which too makes him notable on its own. Nikola 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Now seriously, don't get impression that I think that perpetuum mobile can be created. But this guy has managed to get enough attention from the press and other people independent of him to be considered notable. In addition, there is a dozen of books he wrote, neither of which appears to be self-published, and some of his work related to self-sustainable houses appears to be valid. Nikola 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of reliable, third-party, sources. --Pjacobi 13:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please refer to five reliable, third-party sources at the top of this very page. Nikola 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep RELIABLE, THIRD-PARTY SOURCE: - http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Opinion_Dr_Peter_Lindemann.jpg Dr Peter Lindemann (USA) about Veljko Milkovic's invention]

    According to the definition of Inventor, the inventor is a person who discovered something new and has at least one approved patent - Veljko Milkovic is certainly an inventor due to his 36 approved patents[6](so far).

    City of Novi Sad (his home town) awarded him in 2002 with the greatest annual city award (November charter of the city of Novi Sad[7]) for his remarkable contribution in the field of ecology and energetic. Why would the second largest city in Serbia do that for some guy who is an anonymous and is not worth of it?! That is the highest award and is given for very few people every year.

    If he is not a valid inventor why would the Academy of Inventors of Serbia[8] receive him as full member[9]?!. Even Chamber of commerce of Vojvodina[10] organized his introductory lecture[11]and his admission in the membership of that Academy.

    If he and his work are not worth of attention and are not valid why would people all over the world start experimenting and finally proving his claims. An independent experimental work validating Veljko Milkovic's claims

    His previous work, inventions, patents, awards, acknowledgements etc. definitely ranks him as one of the leading today's Serbian inventor. Ternit 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Ternit, what brought your attention to this article? You've made just three edits to Wikipedia. Why just this article and why now? Lunch 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have specially made a wikipedia account to particpate here due to I am informed about him and his work through his books, TV and newspaper apperances, internet articles etc. and he personally and his achievements deserve the Wikipedia article. Ternit 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have few his books - he is certainly a person worthy to have article on Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on some comments by Nikola:
    • Reminding me about the articles in Serbian newspapers is good point. This should be checked further.
    • But noticed by his American colleagues is a poor joke. Websites like rexresearch.com, www.free-energy.ws, www.peswiki.com and www.pesn.com are about as unreliable as a source can get. They should (almost) never be used to source an article and even only seldomly used as external link. Pjacobi 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think they should be used as sources, but they show the fact that this guy is noticed by these other guys working on similar things (who are geographically far away from him). Nikola 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thank you, Nikola, for finding some sources for the article independent of Mr. Milkovic. These articles begin to address the first complaint I made in the {{prod}}

    However, I don't agree with you that these sources make him notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Three of the five articles you cite come from the same source, Dnevnik, Novi Sad's hometown newspaper. The other two, from Belgrade, are a bit more interesting. Would you know what the circulation of these papers are? And could you provide translations of the articles? (Just what do they say about Mr. Milkovic?) Further, you agree that he's a crank. (Right?) But is he notable enough as a crank (among all cranks) to have an article about him?

    My second complaint is that the article reads like self-promotion. I haven't edited the article to reflect what I think is self-promoting material because that would leave little left. I thought I'd wait until the prod (now the AfD) is resolved.

    Last, the claims of inventing a perpetual motion machine are dubious, at best. By putting an article here about them, we give them undue weight. Lunch 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Dnevnik has circulation of 20,000[12]. I couldn't find a reliable reference about Glas's circulation, but few I did found indicates that it's 18,000[13][14] [15] which surprises me, I thought it is more. But Vecernje novosti have freakin' 300,000[16]! For Serbia, these are big numbers. I don't think that I should translate the articles as they are relatively long.
    • I see several areas Milkovic is active in: ecological research (self-reliant housing) which appears to be legitimate and for which he received a few bona fide awards, and writing popular books about it; exploration of Petrovaradin fortress which too appears to be legitimate and for which he also received an award, and writing popular books about it; free energy research a.k.a. perpetuum mobile building which of course is not legitimate but which got noticed by free energy researchers across the pond (and writing popular books about it); and pseudoarcheology (books, too). I believe that he is marginally notable for any of these, save pseudoarcheology, and certainly is notable if they are taken into account together.
    • I don't see how is mentioning claims about perpetuum mobile making undue weight. It is a fact that he makes these claims and that some people bought it. No one is going to believe them just because they're on Wikipedia.
    • Regarding self-promotion, I will fix the article. For example, I found already that this Serbian Academy of Innovation Sciences is a group of twenty inventors[18]. But I'm not inclined in fixing it if it's going down the drain. Nikola 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Once mentioned in Dnevnik. I'm impressed. Nevertheless, I suggest to delete this spam PR effort. Fossa?! 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thrice. It may well be that the article started as self-promotion but the guy is notable anyway. Nikola 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Another article from Dnevnik[19] and it also oftenly informas about his popular lectures[20]. Nikola 06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Here are the information how much time he was mentioned only in Dnevnik (Novi Sad)[21]. I found the list of newspaper articles on internet[22] and press clipings[23] showing how much time he was mentioned in newspapers during previous years. Ternit 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I found this. They are selling 8 his books. I think that there is inaf references for his article on wiki. There is also article about him, and few his books --Jovanvb 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Djus 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I saw him on television several times, and I hardly even watch television. Who knows how many times he actualy appeared. I didn't get an impresion that he is pseudo-anything. --Milant Talk 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I found a new independent source - Altra Scienza magazine published by A.S.S.E. (Italy) wrote about Veljko Milkovic 4 times in the last 3 years: Numero 58 (the latest issue), Numero 56, Numero 53[24] and Numero 25[25]. Ternit 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ternit, despite not being a vote, it would be less confusing, if you don't put more than one "keep" here.
Yeah, "Altra Scienca -- Associazone Studiosi Scienze Eterodosse", that seems to be the Italian chapter of the free energy guys mentioned above. This is not a reliable source for matters of science, but maybe it can be used to prove that he is notable crackpot. --Pjacobi 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, and cleanup any WP:POV issues, unnecessary links. Links in russian should say (Russian) next them, or be removed.Danski14(talk) 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crackpot or not, there do appear to be enough reliable sources for this individual. RFerreira 06:05, 11 April 2007 (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.