The result was Keep. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Clearly a type of perpetual motion device and therefore subject to our rules surrounding the inclusion of fringe ideas, this article is about something which has received no mainstream recognition, popular press coverage, or even criticism/debunking. As such, it cannot be properly sourced except for by proponent websites which fail reiliability and verifiability tests. I think that this article is functioning as a soapbox for the claims of the inventor. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. The article cites references and does not make any unreasonable claims: it gives a strong impression that the thing doesn't work. The thing has been discussed in a number of sources and therefore seems to be notable. By the way, cold fusion is not a perpetual motion machine. Fusion gets energy by changing deuterium into helium. The deuterium is the fuel, which eventually gets used up. Fusion is a well-known scientifically established source of energy. "Cold" fusion has not been shown to be possible, but it's inaccurate to refer to it as a "perpetual motion machine". -- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It would be better to delete, but Keep per notability (above). I deleted a bunch of OR and redundancy and claims that there is some connection between cold fusion and perpetual motion.... that is, most of the article. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. Appears to just about satisfy notability criteria. Unclear on its face if it's perpetual motion or a variant on cold fusion, but either way fringe science and the balance of the article must reflect this (and, whilst much improved, I think further edits are required to this effect). LeContexte ( talk) 11:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Clearly a type of perpetual motion device and therefore subject to our rules surrounding the inclusion of fringe ideas, this article is about something which has received no mainstream recognition, popular press coverage, or even criticism/debunking. As such, it cannot be properly sourced except for by proponent websites which fail reiliability and verifiability tests. I think that this article is functioning as a soapbox for the claims of the inventor. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. The article cites references and does not make any unreasonable claims: it gives a strong impression that the thing doesn't work. The thing has been discussed in a number of sources and therefore seems to be notable. By the way, cold fusion is not a perpetual motion machine. Fusion gets energy by changing deuterium into helium. The deuterium is the fuel, which eventually gets used up. Fusion is a well-known scientifically established source of energy. "Cold" fusion has not been shown to be possible, but it's inaccurate to refer to it as a "perpetual motion machine". -- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It would be better to delete, but Keep per notability (above). I deleted a bunch of OR and redundancy and claims that there is some connection between cold fusion and perpetual motion.... that is, most of the article. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. Appears to just about satisfy notability criteria. Unclear on its face if it's perpetual motion or a variant on cold fusion, but either way fringe science and the balance of the article must reflect this (and, whilst much improved, I think further edits are required to this effect). LeContexte ( talk) 11:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply