Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Newman (inventor)

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. Grand master ka 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Newman (inventor)[edit]

Non-notable inventor of not working perpetual motion machines. --Pjacobi 20:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is truly notorious and therefore notable. Here are a few references from Bob Park's "What's New" column: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn040105.html It says a lawsuit he lost in 1986 is now the legal authority in the US for denying patents for perpetual motion machines. But he finally got a patent: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn050302.html Here is something about his appearance on the CBS evening News in 1987: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN87/wn031387.html More stuff about Joe Newman, including the time he rented the Superdome for a week and his television apperances: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/1998/october/aoct98.cfm Cardamon 23:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "What's new" is News, but this here isn't WikiNews. Is it knowledge? --Pjacobi 00:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the "What's New" columns may not be the best of references, but they were the best I could do on short notice. It was the facts in them that I wanted: several nationwide (US) television appearances, a massive demo in the Superdome, an important court case, and a patent actually granted. He has stirred up a lot of publicity over the decades. Here are 4 short notes in Science about Joe Newman's battles with the patent ofice: "Newman's "energy output" machine put to the test", by Marjorie Sun, Science July 11, 1986 v233 p154(1). Newman's motor: does it work or doesn't it?", by Marjorie Sun, Science, March 29, 1985 v227 p1558(1). "The endless siege of implausible inventions" by R. Jeffrey Smith, Science, Nov 16, 1984 v226 p817(1), and "Newman's impossible motor; the patent office does not believe that Joseph Newman has built a generator that is more than 100 percent efficient, but New Orleans does", by Eliot Marshall, Science, Feb 10, 1984 v223 p571(2) They have some of the same facts as the "What's New" articles. .Cardamon 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was thinking about nominating the article for deletion myself, on the grounds that it's written as a borderline-attack article. Wikipedia's pretty sensitive about critical bio articles, and this article hasn't been properly sourced (a few external links dropped in do not a proper-cite make). No prejudice against recreation if properly sourced, and with a more neutral POV. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it when you can simply change it to make it better? It's not hard to change a POV to NPOV (and I have attempted to do so just now, see my edit), and sources can always be added. I actually have Newman's book somewhere, which would provide good sources for his claims if I could just find it.... -Amatulic 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Newman's machine was the subject of much debate and controversy in the 1980s and 1990s, garnered much media attention, and even got the National Bureau of Standards involved, as well as university physics departments. It's still a subject of curiosity; I for one was glad to find this article on Wikipedia, and I would have tried to create one if it didn't exist. The fact that he was actually awarded a patent makes him notable. Yes, the article can use some NPOV editing (I notice this is being done) and citations, but many articles start out lacking in those respects and eventually evolve into something better. -Amatulic 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable crackpot. Ergative rlt 17:43, 16 September 2006 (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.