Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror

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 keep. Consensus seems to be coming down in the direction of a weak, sickly keep. Joyous! Noise! 04:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kozyrev mirror [edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Russian pseudoscientific device. Reliable sources don't seem to exist and the device doesn't appear notable. BorgQueen (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Search results in English and Russian are mostly conspiracy theories and promotional materials, but there are also a few neutral sources about the history of the experiments, like [1]. small jars tc 15:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I created this article long time back, because the subject came up in a number of my translation jobs. I prefer to have it on Wikipedia for reference, while adhering to the Wikipedia standards for citations and notability. I'm happy about the contributions from different editors that were made to the article over the years it existed and find it to be a good summary on the subject. Otherwise, I'm happy with any decision. Nazar (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nazar: If you'd like to see the article improved, adding more reliable sources would help a lot. BorgQueen (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not too hawkish on this, but I find the sourcing situation to be rather weak. There's one attempt at a "study" I can find which absolutely drips a Bad Science vibe [2], and that's about it for serious coverage. (This "biographical sketch" on Kozyrev mentions it but it's more like a MySpace rant - not something you would want to cite.) I don't think there's sufficient stuff for an article here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added sources to a patent for the mirror along with a source to a book that focuses on the mirror, and discusses experiments with humans done with the mirror in detail. Humanimus (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barely. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could use a few more sources though

AtFirstLight (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2023 (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.