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 redirect to Johann Bessler. – Rich Farmbrough, 10:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC). 10:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Mill[edit]

Gravity Mill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It's just a bunch of garbage somebody simply made up and then stuffed into the wikipedia and then spam linked it around. If it worked it would constitute a perpetual motion machine. It is not in any way notable; they have not shown notability, nor could they ever show notability. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a link to [1] which is a non reliable physics forum where somebody says he just made it up, and others point out that it doesn't work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might not work, but could still show notability (perpetual motion machines are a fascinating topic, even if they don't work!). If the creator can do this, then I'd support the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete simple Google search shows this does not get much coverage outside the "free-energy" forums. The only ref is selling some book on the alleged inventer. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 13:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it's worth noticing that the central notability claim is also blatantly false. There is no such "experimental system". -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 13:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete existing content and redirect to Johann Bessler. The "gravity mill" is a historical term for one of many "overbalancing wheel" perpetual motion machines of the late 17th / 18th centuries. Newton's recently published work on gravity sparked the ideas, but the inventors hadn't read his (or Huygen's) work on caclulus to understand simple harmonic motion and the fact they'd built a pendulum rather than a continuously rotating wheel. This article appears to be a prime example of a later re-invention of this and a WP:ONEDAY for deletion. However the article title is a reasonable redirect to appropriate content on established PM machines. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bullshit of the highest order. It has been proven time and again perpetual motion cannot work and trying to convice people otherwise by writing this bullshit is not what Wikipedia is for. Maybe redirect to Johann Bessler if felt appropriate. Astronaut (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (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.