Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free energy suppression

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 consensus Pea ceNT 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free energy suppression

Just tagged [1] as {Originalresearch}} by User:Perfectblue97. An article about something that doesn't exist except in speeches of Steven Greer and the like. It is a fine intention to give counter-evidence even to the most obscure conspiracy theories, but there should be a limit. --Pjacobi 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Intending to counter a conspiracy theory is not a valid reason for an article; describing a notable conspiracy theory (along with attributable rebuttals) is valid. Gnixon 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Major POV pushing Rackabello 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. This page does not violate WP:NOT and WP:NOR can be resolved by adding a few sources (the sources are at the bottom of the page, they just need to be moved inline). Additionally, POV pushing is not a criteria for deletion. perfectblue 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I shall take a moment out to remind editors that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is are "notability" and "verifiability", not truth. While free energy itself is complete bunk, belief in its suppression is quite real and is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. There are several valid sources listed at the bottom of the page (though not linked into any particular paragraph) which WP:V and WP:RS the ideas behind the conspiracy. This conspiracy made it to Mythbusters, so it has a following. perfectblue 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just make sure all the information is properly sourced. It's a notable conspiracy theory and was, for example, the motivation for Gary McKinnon's hacking attempts. --Darksun 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Subject is somewhat notable, but article has minimal content. No reasonable description of the theory or its history. If that doesn't improve, I vote delete. Does it have the best possible title? Gnixon 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its unfortunately as notable as similar junk, tho perhaps a variation on other similar theories. If kept, I wouldnt particularly feel any need to argue against it--a straight presentation is enough for any reasonable person to understand. DGG 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources moved inline LeContexte 08:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I still see a lack of secondary sources. Not a single source has been unearthed so far, which discusses the phenomenon as secondary source. Stitching together an article from primary sources only is discouraged. --Pjacobi 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried finding WP:RS for a conspiracy? By their very nature these things tend to crop up on Coast to Coast AM or on message boards and in self published works. It's not ideal but this isn't a serious scientific topic so there is some slack. Just consider it to be a page on an urban myth (thus, a description of fiction). perfectblue 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a widespread and notable conspiracy theory; there are books and movies published on it, and a community of supporters. Whether it's true or complete bollocks is irrelevant with regard to keeping the article; the nominator appears to misunderstand this point. He states: "An article about something that doesn't exist..." and "...fine intention to give counter-evidence...". There are plenty of valid and needed articles about things that don't exist. Also, articles on Wikipedia are not intended to give evidence or counter-evidence; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article presents encyclopedic information about a notable social phenomenon. Yes, the information is sketchy; but that's grounds for improving the article, not trashing it. Freederick 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. J. D. Redding 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recently came across it and edited it with a hatchet, because it had little semblence of NPOV. Its not exactly my area of expertise though, so it'd need someone who knows about the topic to really source. Titanium Dragon 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly improved since the initial nomination; it is looking a lot better now, though it still has issues. Reddi has found a lot of sources for it. Titanium Dragon 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable / important topic / AfD is not for content disputes. — Omegatron 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough to be kept. But this article needs more cleaning up (if for no other reason to avoid further deletion debates). To get it under control I suggest existing content is fully sourced before any new content is added. --Careax 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.