Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy

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 keep - IceKarma 16:19, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

This article is just "original research" of questionable value without peer review reference. It concerns a perpetual motion device, no-one really thinks works. Further, it is already listed in Perpetual motion, so really it is a duplicate entry, already covered elsewhere. Multiple reasons to delete Timharwoodx 19:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete - even without the pereptual motion angle, an article on every toy in the world is too much even though Wikipedia isn't paper.
Keep - it is NPOV and is an interesting topic. Has physics explanation from Matthewcieplak now to give an even more balanced view. --Pengo 07:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It goes into more detail than would be appropriate in the PM article, and is therefore useful, plus there are many articles on Wikipedia concerning obsolete, useless or even fictional things. Boffy b 03:41, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable BS, and the article fails to explain why. Smells like spam, right down to the inclusion of a patent number as if it means the thing actually works as advertised. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I added a section explaining the physics of it (simple energy conversions), and how its illusion works. I found the whole thing rather fascinating, and it is somewhat notable as it brings up quite a few hits (from both proponents and skeptics) on google. I cited a scientific explanation in the external links. No reason not to keep it. Matthewcieplak 06:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not because the device is ridiculous and attracts cranks, but because it's not sufficiently notable to deserve an article of its own. There are hundreds of perpetual-motion "toys" using magnetism out there - DavidWBrooks 18:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I like this! --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This is an excellent example of something that was claimed to be, and patented as a perpetual motion device. As such it is historical documentation and good research material. It represents a curious modern alchemy of sorts.
Keep Bawolff 03:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm unconvinced by any of the reasons given. In the worst case, it does not do any harm for the article to stay. 80.58.43.42 01:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Just because we have an article on one toy doesn't mean we should have an article on every toy. This is a perpetual motion patent despite the laws against perpetual motion patents. So it is notable in a small regard (and I clicked on it because I was interested in what it was). Luqui 05:36, 2005 Feb 26 (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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.