Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steorn

Steorn

Fails notability threshold for companies in every imaginable way. GBP 85,200 may buy a full page ad in the Economist, but a Wikipedia article is not included with that. --Pjacobi 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless better information is dug up and cited for this article, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the garden-variety "we've done the impossible, but we aren't going to tell you how just yet" claims of scam artists. I see two possibilities for the article's continued presence: (A) it is so widely reported (by gullible news agencies more interested in ratings than verifiable truth) that it should be included as a well-known swindle; (B) the company has actually done something that forces a change in the laws of physics, which would require "extraordinary proof", which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Either way, reliable sources are needed for us to write about it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have a fairly simple criterion that's relevant here: if I came to Wikipedia specifically looking for this article, it should be kept. While they probably haven't really rewritten the laws of physics, they are getting a lot of news coverage. ^L_Wizard @ 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Steorn is a technology risk management firm that has been around for several years and although this wiki article is currently biased to their recent developments and announcements, there is a significant amount of information relavent to the company which could be written here as well. The Internet Archive has pages as far back as 2001, long before they developed their "free energy" device. I vote that we keep the page and add more information to it. Jared81 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at least for now, due to massive media coverage. If it turns out to be nothing special and nobody remembers the whole thing in a year's time, we can always re-evaluate then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I came here looking for information on this company as well. However, I suggest that, eventually, this could be merged into History of perpetual motion machines. Nightwatch／respond 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean way up. If it's a scam, it's going to scam people whether or not wikipedia has an article on it, and wikipedia can at least help to clarify the nature of the scam. People on web forums are linking to the wikipedia page about this thing already. I do think the article *needs* some kind of section for concerns that this company possibly doesn't even exist (and, say, a marketing company just bought up a defunct Irish company's website and put some nonsense about perpetual motion on it that will later turn out to be promotion for some video game or something). Awk 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Paul Studier 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has been a big news story for the last few days and this story will not go away any time soon. A whole lot of people have been looking for information on this company and isn't this what wikipedia is for ? Niall123 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's NOT a perpetual motion machine as mentioned in the article. It is in fact a Zero point energy machine. Please see Steorn's video which clearly demonstrates that this has something to do with magnetic induction. There are other inaccuracies in the article. For, e.g., their background is mainly in technology consulting, not dotcoms. I'm new to wikipedia so I suggest someone please make the corrections. See Steorn's patent description and an independent company verifying their claims, although admittedly that's not a very reliable source.--Orangehues 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "independent company" cited in the above link (which is an alternative-energy wiki, not a reliable publication) is apparently Magnetic Power Inc., which "claims to be close enough to have some demonstration modules, which extracts energy from the vacuum of space, ready for market by end of 2006". In other words, this is like John Edward testing Uri Geller. I'm frightened by the number of people who will believe anything they read on the Internet. That's why we require reliable sources, folks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK; everybody seems to expect by now, that Wikipedia has something about everything in the news, but please remember that the project was started to write an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 21:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course we all use Wikipedia to find information, but it's to find valid information, not rumors, unsubstantiated claims, and marketing events. That said, I'm trying to tighten up the sourcing so we can get to the facts of this subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

However i would rather see an article on wikipedia with a NPOV tag or an article aoutlining the controversy than no article at all. Smartaalec 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They may not have changed the laws of physics; maybe they're just siphoning off some previously unknown energy source. I'm not a physicist, I don't know. However, if they are a legit company and have a legit claim we ought to keep a record of it for history's sake. If they are a scam, we could have a spectacular record of that too. Spahi 22:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep My name's Cathal, I think that this article should be kept on Wikipedia. If the whole idea is a hoax(which I think is hard to believe, from what I've seen) having it or not having it on Wikipedia won't change that. Just as many encyclopedias have detailed articles on ideas and things which later turned out to be false (flat-earth, the geocentric Solar System et al.) so too must Wikipedia, another encyclopedia report on this (potential) falsitude.
• Keep Steorn very much deserves an article, if not only for the fact that it can link to Perpetual Motion and similar articles. It would also be a good place to have the results of their testing, etc.

(With the rather one-sidedness of this discussion, should the deletion box be removed?) ~ Nick.sideras 23:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I see no reason to delete it, as they are a company that is making news, and thus deserve a Wiki entry.OkamiItto 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think they pass the threshold of newsworthiness. Tt 225 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's been publicized in various places, and there is a lot of public interest about the concept. Because of this, there should be a wikipedia page to keep up with any new information about this technology, despite the fact that it seems impossible.--Sam Ellens 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This article should most definately be kept - it has gained major attention in the news, and in my opinion the fact it may be a hoax is irrelevant - using that logic should we delete all the articles on List of hoaxes as well? As far as I'm concerened its a shame we have to have the deletion message up there for the next 4 days when the concensus seems pretty clear... Smartaalec 01:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are news articles on this company on the front page of Google News in the Technology section. REGARDLESS of whether their claims are bunk (and I'm not saying that they are), Wikipedia needs an article to address the controversy. C'mon, it's ON THE FRONT PAGE OF GOOGLE NEWS. Styrbjorn 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ditto, it's ON THE FRONT PAGE OF GOOGLE NEWS. Anal admins, take note.
• Keep Life on earth is about to change or these crazy Irishmen are about to make utter fools of themselves, either way this is notable without a doubt. Dev1n 05:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)