- 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with this article is that there is no effect in science named Tesla effect. Also there are no longitudinal electromagnetic waves (in non-conducting media). Please delete. --Pjacobi 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Important note: Let me point out that this article is written by a notorious original researcher, User:Reddi, who has written a lot of nonsense in Wikipedia that represent his own opinions on original research and science. As such, the reason that this article should be deleted is because it represents the original research of this user and it is, frankly, not a verifiable term. For more on this, take a look at Wikipedia: Notability (science) proposed guideline as well as the criteria for inclusion of fringe material (which, I will note, this article fails). This article does not pass any of these guidelines or criteria as listed. Please do not let the quality of Wikipedia degrade by allowing such cruft and original research to pollute this resource. --ScienceApologist 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I edited boldly and removed the sentence about longitudinal waves. Tesla did indeed light bulbs wirelessly in a room by putting conductors on opposite walls and inducing a high voltage high frequency field in the room. There are references in the article which support this and more could be furnished, from electrical engineering publications and public demonstrations before engineering societies in the 1890s. The article also labels as pseudoscience the myths of using his theories to build earthquake generators. Edison 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pseudoscience (and seemingly hoaxish). Too many contradictions to overlook (if "Tesla effect" is archaeic term, what's the modern term?). /Blaxthos 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Does not violate WP:NOR or WP:V well referenced articleRaveenS 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a notable concept. Pseudoscience is not a deletation criteria.---J.S (T/C) 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak Delete. I think the concept is notable, but the current article is simply unsalvageable. I recommend no prejudice against recreation if sources are found. ---J.S (T/C) 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice of this AFD has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal#Paranormal_AFD_Noticeboard ---J.S (T/C) 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm flabbergasted: The term simply doesn't exist. How can we have a article about it? The evidence is constructed like in any typical article by Reddi, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2. --Pjacobi 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs an overhall and some more details, but I've found multiple references to it in literature and trade publications so should still be kept. Even if the effect were to turn out to be bogus pseudo science, hoaxes and fakes are all viable topic for Wikipedia entries perfectblue 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- References to a physical effect? And to which modern name do these references refer? Can you incidently give some of these references? --Pjacobi 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether the science is any good, you can read more in "The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla" ASIN B000CPMQAK. I believe that the modern name "might be" Pulse generation, but I could be thinking of a related term. perfectblue 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- References to a physical effect? And to which modern name do these references refer? Can you incidently give some of these references? --Pjacobi 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article represents original reserach in that the "Tesla effect" is not a standardized term. While pseudoscience in-and-of-itself is not a deletionable reason, lack of coherent explanatory references is. Take a careful look at the references, they do not use the term "Tesla effect" to mean the same thing. This means that there isn't any consensus on how to use the term and it is all original research presentations (not corroborated by third-party sources). --ScienceApologist 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination: there's no effect in science called "Tesla effect". The description given in the "definition" is a well-known process in electromagnetism, but it's not called the Tesla effect. (What's a "natural medium"? And it's not electrostatics...) As a side note, I've seen the demonstration of holding a fluorescent light tube (one of those long ones used in office ceilings) near an alternating high-voltage source; the bulb does light up (dimly) due to induction. I've never seen it with an incandescent bulb. HEL 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ScienceApologist and HEL. Leibniz 15:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is not any scientifically accepted, nor even a "common" definition of the so-called "Tesla Effect". There are indeed a number of various electrostatic induction, magnetic induction, near field EM radiation, and displacement current effects that explain various demonstrations performed by Tesla. Inclusion of the "Tesla Effect" as a valid scientific effect in Wikipedia gives it undeserved credibility. Bert 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Inclusion of the "Tesla Effect" as a valid scientific effect in Wikipedia gives it undeserved credibility"; how about including it as a valid piece of hokum? perfectblue 16:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It gets about 2500 g-hits on an exact-name search. It also shows up under a bunch of "newage" type websites: [1][2][3][4]. Something doesnt need to be real or credible to have an article on Wikipedia. "there's no effect in science called "Tesla effect"." - That is completely irrelevant. We have 1000s of articles on subjects that have no scientific backing.
- However, if the article is inaccurate or POV then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. ---J.S (T/C) 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the Google test: excluding Wikipedia and well behaving mirrors [5] gives me less than 1200 hits. So, more than 50% of "Tesla effect"'s web presence is generated by this ill advised article of us. --Pjacobi 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pjacobi, ScienceApologist and HEL. One could make a case that this term refers to a notable piece of hokum (the Heim theory defense), but in my judgment, the evidence presented so far is insufficient to support that conclusion. Anville 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I'm with HEL and Science Apologist on this. There is no clear definition; therefore, how can we expect to have a WP:NOR, WP:V article on it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurascudder (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep If there is no clear definition, then present all of the definitions, as the phrase "Tesla Effect" has certainly been used. FrozenPurpleCube 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot just throw around all definitions from all obscure sources that haven't been verified. That's original research. --ScienceApologist 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. If somebody else uses it elsewhere, that's their research, not Wikipedia's. Thus not OR. Questions about V are irrelevent. It may be wrong, it may be archaic, but those are not reasons to delete. They're reasons to write the article carefully. Now I suppose there may be some sources that use it in very obscure ways and they don't mean the RS inclusion threshold, but that's a matter of individual consideration, to be handled on a case by case basis. FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot just throw around all definitions from all obscure sources that haven't been verified. That's original research. --ScienceApologist 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think it is a standard term. It isn't in references such as the McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology or the New York Public Library Science Desk Reference. Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a comment before without voting. I vote mild delete. Bubba73 (talk), 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The meaning of the term as a modern concept appears to be unverifiable. As an archaic term (that is, in historical context), it's definitely not notable.--ragesoss 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR. -Sean Curtin 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know if it should be outright deleted, but after delving 70 results deep into Google and turning up only the references listed here or variations of them, I don't think anyone is going to miss it : ) There are a few references to the term, however, and some people seem to think it is something to discuss, so I suggest merging it into another article somewhere and redirect there instead of removing it completely.--Nealparr 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & Ragesoss. Guettarda 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this was a history-of-science attempt to describe an archaic/obsolete scientific theory, that would have been great. However, it appears to be a cranky mis-understanding of science; as a whole, an embarrassment to WP. linas 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no Tesla Effect to describe. If this article is trying to describe the social phenomenon of 'People who incorrectly believe there is a Tesla Effect' it is way too sketchy and has no reliable sources. While trying to uphold the banner of normal science, the article does not succeed in giving a clear statement of what Tesla actually thought. It sounds as though he must have disbelieved Maxwell's equations. For a better introduction to Tesla's unusual world view see the Nikola Tesla article EdJohnston 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'strong keepIf its a reported phenomenon that has at some point gotten serious atention, and there is doubt about whether or not it is real, WP is just the place. WE are not called upon to make the judgement whether the effect exists, and I wonder how some of the above think they are qualified to do so--neither am I qualified to say, but giving whatever existss about it is what WP is for.DGG 06:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the point, DGG, it's not a "reported phenomena" that has gotten "serious attention". Do some research and see. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if terms like "Tesla effect" aren't used in the scientific community, it's not Wikipedia's job to publicize them. Quack 688 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete term that is bogus, giving the impression that it's a scientific term when, in fact, it is not. Whether it's a hoax or neologism, it violates Wikipedia policy. Doczilla 03:03, 18 December 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.