Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurophone (2nd nomination)

Neurophone (2nd nomination)

No valid sources, subject is not notable, article has not been improved since the last AfD, the primary editor appears to have left Wikipedia. This device falls into the same category as perpetual motion devices, except less likely to work, and without the same knowledge of scientific principles as those employ. Also, there have been famous attempts at creating perpetual motion devices. Tenebrous 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a device is likely to work has no bearing on the "delete-ability" of its article (cold fusion, anyone?). The key questions are: does the article cite sources; is it verifiable? (NPOV can be introduced via cleanup once citations and verifiability are given.) I see a link to the relevant patent which means someone did patent such a device. "LIFE Magazine, Sept 14, 1962" is also cited as a source so the existance of this device (working or not) can be verified from reliable independent sources. I can't see the relevance of the 1991 research paper section to the rest of the article, but it too is backed up by a reference to Science magazine. Hence keep because the article has at least two sources cited. Flyingtoaster1337 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine articles aren't generally reliable sources. The Science article has nothing to do with the device, it's only a stab at proving that the principles behind it are sound. That someone has patented something is in itself meaningless. People have patented lossless compression algorithms that compress all data to a given size, but it doesn't mean those exist either. Tenebrous 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the device also fails under notability. The creator of the device is notorious as a crank, but more notoriously crank-y for other things, and he does not have an article on Wikipedia either. Tenebrous 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]