Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold electricity

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 per sufficient consensus on lacking notability and encyclopedic content. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold electricity[edit]

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

Speedy declined. Pseudoscience, inadequately described and visibly nonsense in most parts. A collection of scientific-sounding words in grammatical formation does not prevent this from being patent nonsense. Deep fringe theory; not notable in reliable sources. Original research. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete - it seems to be a real if fringe theory based on the refs, but it's not clear if it's notable as the refs are not from reliable sources or not on the topic. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is yet another "energy from nowhere" concept (in this case, the author seems to think that they can get more energy out of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays than they spend making the particle/antiparticle pairs, via a roundabout method involving photocurrents). If this specific proposal was sufficiently publicized, it might merit an article describing it as a fringe theory (or inclusion in a list of free-energy claims), but the article as-written a) fails to demonstrate that its subject is notable and b) gives undue weight to its subject's claims (presents it as fact rather than bunk). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Can't find anything in google books is relation to science. Whats mentioned is in relation to vedic texts. The first two sources are PDFs, even though it intimates the second is a book. It related to free energy nonense. Charge Clusters in Action can't be identified. I think either WP:HOAX or new age nonsense. scope_creep (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - does not make sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability. Two refs which appear to be self published apparently cover the topic, and the other two more reliable sources apparently do not. Sounds like nonnotable pseudoscience. Makes little sense in general from the standpoint of electrical physics. Edison (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable pseudoscience. Icalanise (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sound reasons given above. Also, it could be a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'm no physicist, but the failure of WP:RS is hard to overcome here. At best this is a fringe theory with a few sources that appear self-published. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable WP:FRINGE pseudoscience, with no secondary sources. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Anything reliant in this article should be merged with article on electricity.Silent Bob (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don;t see any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content in the article. See WP:UNDUE. We do not need to include every nonnotable fringe viewpoint in an article about a scientific topic. Edison (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment as per my !vote above if there were reliable sources on it then it could be worthy of its own article, or a mention in another, and usually such will be quickly found during an active AfD. That no-one has recalled or found any such coverage suggests it is entirely non-notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. I'm all in favour of articles on pseudo-science. In particular I see their recording, referenced explanation and clear debunking as having an important educational aspect. However this makes the bar for notability even more critical: there must be a clear audit trail of just what is being claimed, who's claiming it, and how much (or how little) evidence there is to back it up. This article isn't meeting that bar. It's unclear, and it's inadequately cited.

I'd reverse this view if the article was improved. It would need better references, for a start. The current first is that classic mix of Inappropriate Capitalisation and Tesla. Just throwing some impressive words together (Radiant Energy! Cool, I've a degree in that.) does not make a credible abstract. When I read "dense electronic stringy loops" in the second I found it difficult to read further. No-one as yet understands string theory anywhere near well enough to start using it as an explanation mechanism for an effect like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Stringy Loops" sounds like a high fiber breakfast cereal. Edison (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noteable pseudoscience. I predict this ting will resurface anyway. If you have a look with google you will find that it is abundant and already creeps into novice pages. Myself stumbled about this rubbish some time ago, while looking into some home tinkering. I could easily rewrite this article to be scientifically proper. It would list the basic ideas with correct description and wikilinking. The refutation would only list extremely basic facts like W=U*I and "some"<>"enough", which are missed by the referenced side long PDF. That would be bordering on original research, but should be acceptable due to being so basic, physics schoolbooks would be the only additional reference. I would stay away from a deep thorough discussion. A problem would be the history of that crab. There is some Peter A. Lindemann, some Ronald R. Stiffler and some Edwin Gray at least. At least Peter A. Lindemann seems to "earn" money with that by book, video and maybe talk. Maybe somebody has a link to some statistics. Please note me, if the final vote is for keeping. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2010 (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.