Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Searl

Add links
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 Delete the sources just don't stack up the one RS is for the less notable electricity theft rather than the SEG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searl Effect Generator (2nd nomination).--Salix (talk): 08:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Searl[edit]

John Searl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an inventor whose sole claim to fame (if that's not too strong a term) is having invented the Searl Effect Generator (this raises concerns about WP:BLP1E). The standard of sourcing is atrocious for a WP:BLP, and my own searches were unable to find anything better. I found only a few, distinctly fringey publications that might just about qualify as sources about his invention, but they contained nothing of significance about him. The subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Jakew (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources appear to only exist for John Searl on the electricity theft which is WP:ONEEVENT and also minor: it does not reach notability. The SEG appears to fall short of notability (I couldn't find any decent sources). Google books and Google scholar on the SEG only shows up with some fringe publications. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A stack of SPS. Delete it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It seems that he is not WP:BLP1E since he has both the invention of the SEG and the electricity theft conviction which are only tangentially related. I agree that the sources leave a lot to be desired, and there is lots of self-published material (SPS), such as the documentary. The article has been around since March 2006. So I guess the real question is: Is he a notable crackpot? Based on fringe sources, I would say he is. SPS can legitimately be used for personal data such as birth, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD; are you suggesting fringe sources help establish notability? This seems pretty counter-intuitive since usually significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are required as per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do suggest that a volume of independent fringe coverage could establish notability. It might not be reliable as to the truth of statements, but still be an indicator of notability. Of course here the best sources would tend to be debunking ones. --Bejnar (talk) 07:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that, if a subject is only discussed in fringe sources, it becomes impossible to write a properly sourced article that satisfies the requirement of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE that we give the most weight to mainstream perspectives. Given a choice between giving undue weight to fringe perspectives because mainstream scientists consider the subject too silly to mention, or not having an article, it seems that the latter choice is a better fit with our core policies. This isn't a notability issue per se, but policies & guidelines do need to be considered as an whole. Jakew (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fringe sources aren't reliable sources so they can't and shouldn't be used to establish notability. Fringe sources are, by their nature, typically minor websites etc as well, so they are not prominent either. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meco has just restored the text of the badly sourced Searl Effect Generator. I would suggest including this into the AfD as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article has been nominated previously, though it was ultimately kept. I personally think that a mistake, and would support another AfD, but I'd prefer not to combine the two as I think there may be a case (albeit one which I wouldn't agree with) for keeping the invention but not the inventor. Jakew (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now started a separate AfD for the SEG. [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references currently in use are not reliable. WP:GNG requires signficant coverage in reliable sources. These sources don't exist so the article is not notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Times is not reliable? Are you kidding? -- 202.124.89.209 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we base the whole article around John Searl being an electricity thief? This seems a relatively minor mention and not something to base an article on. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - it appears that he's only notorious because of one fringe-y invention. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the Times will sometimes report something trivial, and his crime is certainly of that nature. Nothing else he did is of significance. Neither he nor his claimed invention are notable, much less the two of them put together, sicne the only additional material here is the very minor crime. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 8 March 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Searl&oldid=1070596613"